To any rational or legal mind shouldn't it be inconceivable that a federal judge who would lie so casually and often under oath, for whatever reason, would be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice? It shouldn't even be debated. It makes no sense whatsoever, outside of pure irrational, polarized politics. Only in today's America.
Agree 151 was referring to very high proof rum, and grain is 180 to 190 from what I've heard. If these guys were using grain to get girls (or themselves) knock down drunk, they probably also used 151 when they couldn't get the grain alcohol, as 151 was easier to get hold of (sold in most liquor stores back then). On the issue of ludes (or 714s), I had not heard them referred to as Qs or Killer Qs either but that reference is easy to imagine if you've ever seen people on them. The mixture of ludes with 151 or grain would definitely knock out almost anybody. For hours.
All of this. This nomination should have been over immediately after the hearing, and we should be talking about a new nominee now.
I didn't really follow the Cosby trial. What was the physical evidence presented that you found compelling?
You act as if boofing was the only thing he was blatantly wrong on. I outlined the whole set of things he lied about. His classmates confirmed he was lying about all of the sexual and drinking terms that he lied about in the hearing. A simple understanding of the English language tells you he intentionally misrepresented the affidavits of the relevant witnesses. Over and over and over again. Earlier I linked an article calling for his impeachment from his current position for lying in prior confirmation hearings. The dude is serial perjurer. Probably why Trump loves him so much.
Did it include lots of fruit? Ours did, and you had to have guts to continue eating it, knowing blackout was on its way. *It's why I honestly have (or maybe had) some sympathy for BK. I think people would think I was spinning the yarn to the extreme if I told of all that I experienced in college. But it's also why I think he's full of it when it comes to his drinking and partying.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Gamble v. United States In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than once, bars a federal prosecution for a criminal offense when the defendant has already been prosecuted for the same offense in state court. THIS IS WHY THERE IS A RUSH TO GET KAVANAUGH ON THE SCOTUS THEY ARE TAKING THIS CASE UP IN OCTOBER!! THIS IS WHY TRUMP PICKED HIM. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT TRUMP
When I was at St Cloud St MN I was in a 9 story dorm (Stearns Hall 4 Ever!) and it was against MN state law to possess alcohol on state property. There was a open keg tapped on every floor 24/7. The guys 2 rooms over ran a bar out of their room. They converted the whole room with an actual bar, complete with actual bar, lights and a couch. The RA not only even knew it, he was their best customer. One night someone passed out drunk on the sofa with a lit cigarette and set the room on fire. Talk about a party foul. I learned the early '80's jargon when I got down here, and Q were definitely for ludes, although it could have been for 1/4 oz's as well. For me, a pinch hit of Gainesville's finest and nursing bud lights worked just fine. I do not believe for one second that someone hitting the q's and 151's never passed out.
I suspect the main GOP excitement to get him onto the Court quickly (to the degree it related to cases at all and not simply politics) was for Weyerhauser and Gundy, two administrative law cases being heard this week. Kavanaugh tends to not give a great deal of deference to administrative agencies (and, as a result, many of his most important opinions on the DC Circuit have been administrative law opinions). Gamble isn't being heard this month - it's not even set for argument yet. And, in any event, I tend to think that its relevance to anything to do with Trump is being greatly overblown - it concerns a man who was convicted by both federal and state courts of the same crime - being a felon in possession of a firearm - based on the exact same incident.
Ben....I thought the implications was that if he ( Trump )wasn't convicted by the FEDS ( because the SCOTUS gave him executive power protection ) that Trump could not be prosecuted in say New York for same crime or similar. Your thoughts
Potential BOMBSHELL: Mutual friend of Ramirez and Kavanaugh anxious to come forward with evidence In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News. Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has attempted to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau. The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story. The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information through to the FBI.
And until you can provide a written deposition where he correctly explains what boofing is, along with the other sexual terms you refer to which contradicts his testimony last Thursday, you don't have a perjury charge. Perjury by its very nature is difficult to prove. There's a good reason for that. Because otherwise, people like you would try to convict someone based on hearsay. Unless you have a Bill Clinton type scenario, where he actually states in a sworn deposition that he did not have an affair with a female and then later in a subsequent sworn deposition states that he did have that affair with said female, you don't have perjury. And even then, that man was allowed to keep serving as POTUS, leader of the free world.
I think, to the degree that there's any Trump-related impact at all, it would be solely in the context of the ability for states to bring duplicative state charges following a federal pardon (i.e., assuming that Trump pardoned Manafort, Virginia then prosecuting Manafort for bank fraud based on the same transaction to keep pressure on him). I don't think it's at all clear that the case would actually have that impact, but the only argument that I have seen for how it is even potentially relevant has been in the context of whether it could neuter the "hand charges over to state officials to evade the presidential pardon power" strategy that the media perennially enjoys discussing. In the context you're speaking of, I'm not sure how it would matter at all. Its impact would only be felt in instances where the federal government and a state were both trying to prosecute the same crime, and if there was a holding that the feds outright couldn't prosecute him because of some form of immunity or prudential basis for waiting, there likely wouldn't be a double jeopardy issue presented in the first place. (As an aside, if SCOTUS holds that he can't be the subject of a federal prosecution while he is in office, I don't think there's any way in hell they would hold that a state prosecution while he was in office was permissible at all, so how double jeopardy would impact that analysis would be largely an academic question anyways.)
For those who argue that it's not big deal because Kavanaugh must have been told before the article: Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s allegation that he exposed himself to her in college was in a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
Here's one article that after Kavanaugh's anti-left rant, that he would have to recuse himself from any case involving a left-leaning group. Here's another one saying Kavanaugh would have to recuse himself from any case involving Democrats in Congress. At this point, whether or not he sexually assaulted the women, it's clear he lied under oath, and another lie could possibly be discovered if it is found he talked about Ramirez before she came forward. Kavanaugh is also beyond clearly partisan, which is something that cannot be allowed on the SCOTUS. There are partisan Justices, of course, but they need to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Clearly, Kavanaugh did not. As for parties, anyone who has ever spent time in Tucson knows what Eegees is. It's a fast food restaurant known for a few things including great french fries, but also the Eegee, which is a slushy drink. Add good tequila to the strawberry Eegee and you have an instant strawberry margarita. The party pack comes in a large tub and makes a great base for jungle juice. Add a party pack or two with some Everclear, fruit, a small amount of fruit juice concentrate, plus water, and let sit for 24-48 hours and you have one hell of a drink.
