Kavanaugh Vote on hold.???

Tiassa said:
20180927-brettkavanaugh-detail-bw.png



Lying to Congress is lying to Congress, and is enforced by Congress.

Lying to the FBI, however, is the purview of the Department of Justice, and of all the corruption people might imagine of law enforcement, a president forcing the Bureau to take it on the chin in a high-profile public spectacle is the sort of thing that would leave a mark. Cops don't like being lied to, regardless of which political appointee is in charge. If President or AG tries to make them tank, it would be obvious. If Director went along, the repercussions would be tectonic, because he would lose the entire Bureau.

Someone close to President Trump will explain it to him, and #DonnySmalls will turn around and eff it up before you can blink. But lying to the FBI would be the perfect pretense, at some point here in the next couple days, for the President to cut Kavanaugh loose and try to posture himself against lying to the FBI.

Okay, okay. I might, after I stop laughing at that last, remember to come up with a better one.
Click to expand...
ok... no so obvious..uhm...obviously...
definition of perjury:
..the offense of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

q. Was the candidate under oath when he testified to the senate inquiry.
a. yes he was ( see video )
q. if found that he lied under oath what could he be charged with?
a. Perjury

Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances, but it does seem obvious and pretty straight forward to me...
 
Tiassa said:
20180927-brettkavanaugh-detail-bw.png
Click to expand...

1st time ive looked at the picture. notice the tiny water bottles
who makes such tiny water bottles ?
note 1 o th eleft has the cap removed but none has been drunk/poured...
what was the point in that ? what a watse!

is that kelly anee conway over the back of his left shoulder at the end seated ?
why is that lady stading in th emiddle of the doorway ? does she not knwo the fire code ?!
why is that security officer wearing a hat ? i thought they made everyone take off hats inside ?
poor women on the far left looks like she should have spent the day in bed on medical leave.
someone should do a broardway show about all the audience watching (seated inthe picture) done well its likely to win awards.
 
Quantum Quack said:
ok... no so obvious..uhm...obviously...
definition of perjury:
..the offense of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

q. Was the candidate under oath when he testified to the senate inquiry.
a. yes he was ( see video )
q. if found that he lied under oath what could he be charged with?
a. Perjury

Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances, but it does seem obvious and pretty straight forward to me...
Click to expand...
if he stands on the side of the road, or in the middle of a park or fair ground, and swears an oath, is it a real oath ?
can he then be tried for purjury based on what he says ?
or only in a court room or before a legally sitting judge ?
 
The obvious question, dunno why it hasn't come up - I haven't seen a TV interview with a retired head of a big HR department, say.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-would-likely-not.html

Last Thursday, as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh bellowed and sucked down water and snuffled like a coke fiend with too many nose hairs, I asked the good people of Twitter a simple question. "Just curious: What would HR at your company or work say about all this? Would they let you hire Kavanaugh?" I wondered.
Click to expand...
 
iceaura said:
Last Thursday, as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh bellowed and sucked down water and snuffled like a coke fiend with too many nose hairs, I asked the good people of Twitter a simple question. "Just curious: What would HR at your company or work say about all this? Would they let you hire Kavanaugh?" I wondered.
Click to expand...

I've asked several Trump supporters this. "Let's say you interview a guy for a job as a cashier. His resume looks awesome. He talks about how he's the best cashier ever, and his work ethic is impeccable, and his ten year old daughter (sniff, sniff) prays every night that her hardworking daddy gets this important job. Then you check out his references. The first one says he stole from the register. The second one said he was always drunk on the job. The third one said he had a drinking problem. The fourth one was his best friend, and said that he never drank and he never stole a single thing, and how dare anyone say anything bad about him. Would you hire him?"

They're never able to answer. Because if they say "yes" they look like gullible fools who will take the word of a scammer. If they say "no" then they look like hypocrites for supporting Kavanaugh.
 
Regarding Kavanaugh's blatantly disqualifying performance re Ford: Somebody actually took the time and trouble to grind out the obvious at its tedious and miserably petty length, and so we can just read it at leisure.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
- But while the FBI investigation may turn up additional useful information, at this point there is absolutely no need for it unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it. It’s completely unnecessary in determining whether Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court; even the very limited questions already asked of Kavanaugh have yielded disqualifying answers. Kavanaugh is lying, it’s provable, and that’s all there is to it. -
Click to expand...
- - He went before the United States Senate and showed total contempt for his vow to tell the truth. He attempted to portray a highly esteemed doctor as a crazy person, by consistently misrepresenting the evidence. He treated the public like we were idiots, like we wouldn’t notice as he pretended he was ralphing during Beach Week from too many jalapeños, as he feigned ignorance about sex slang, as he misread his own meticulously-kept 1982 summer calendar, as he replied to questions about his drinking habits by talking about church, as he suggested there are no alcoholics at Yale, as he denied knowing who “Bart O’Kavanaugh” could possibly be based on, as he declared things refuted that weren’t actually refuted, as he claimed witnesses said things they didn’t say, as he failed to explain why nearly a dozen Yale classmates said he drank heavily, as he invented an imaginary drinking game to avoid admitting he had the mind of a sports jock in high school, as he said Ford had only accused him last week, as he responded to his roommate’s eyewitness statement with an incoherent story about furniture, as he pretended Bethesda wasn’t five miles wide, as he insisted Renate should be flattered by the ditty about how easy she was, as he declared that distinguished federal judges don’t commit sexual misconduct even though he had clerked for exactly such a judge. - - -
Click to expand...
 
iceaura said:
Regarding Kavanaugh's blatantly disqualifying performance re Ford: Somebody actually took the time and trouble to grind out the obvious at its tedious and miserably petty length, and so we can just read it at leisure.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Click to expand...

Just read this a few hours ago.

What gets me is that he is simply not a very good liar--or even a careful one. There were certainly times during his "performance" which his phrasing seemed carefully chosen, so as to avoid the possibility for perjury (technicalities), but mostly his lies were quite apparent and transparent. Surely one learns the art of "careful phrasing" in law school, and he should be quite adept at it by this stage.
 
Also, and I hate to say this, but Al Franken would have made an excellent inquisitor here. The Democrats weren't nearly... aggressive enough with their queries. If the fuckwit refuses to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question, why allow him to carry on with his rambling, defensive deflections--especially when one is only allowed a very narrow window of time?
 
They are all liars:
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02...g-about-the-evidence-against-brett-kavanaugh/
I want to emphasize how flakey this argument is, because Mitchell has largely based her assessment of Ford’s testimony on this particular claim that the witnesses refuted or failed to corroborate it. She opens her memo by announcing that this is her “bottom line,” and in a bolded paragraph, cites the witness statements as the key basis for her conclusion that “this evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard.” (Again, a standard which she admitted didn’t apply to this proceeding). Given that the only witnesses who refuted Ford’s allegations are those accused of sexual assault, and one witness actually did support Ford’s account, Mitchell’s claims fall short of dispositive, and frankly, skew toward intentionally misleading.
Click to expand...
Mitchell characterizes the shift from “mid” to “early” 80s as damning, noting that “while it’s common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.”

The thing is, Ford did explain how she was able to narrow the timeframe to the early 80s: She realized the assault occurred before she was old enough to have a driver’s license, and was able to infer her age from that fact. Mitchell should know this, because Ford explained it in response to Mitchell’s own questioning:
- - -
In one of her more blatant mischaracterizations, Mitchell argues that Ford “struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.” There is no basis for this statement
.- - - -
In her final, and perhaps her most frivolous argument, Mitchell suggests that Ford’s credibility is undermined by the fact that Ford “alleges that she struggled academically in college,” due to PTSD and anxiety from the assault, “but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.” This simply isn’t true.
Click to expand...
This does, in fact, appear "skewed toward intentionally misleading".
 
Last edited:
parmalee said:
especially when one is only allowed a very narrow window of time?
Click to expand...
the politics and mechniisms of bully culture and methadology

time is on your side when you do not have to change direction.

"i don't know nuffing" replys the big fat bully

in bully world this can be repeated over and over because the little bully is protected by the bigger bully in the bully universe.
 
Maybe senator Flake and some other senate republicans will do the right thing, before the Supreme Court of the USA becomes a laughing stock? What are the odds? Anyone?
 
Neddy Bate said:
Maybe senator Flake and some other senate republicans will do the right thing, before the Supreme Court of the USA becomes a laughing stock? What are the odds? Anyone?
Click to expand...

white flight and the fear of changing directions
old world liniar values of thought and leadership(single unchanging unwaivering direction, single issues, one thing at a time while ignoring peripherals)
voter demographics...
concepts of cultural pollitical correctness(in this case never changing your mind as that is percieved as a sign of weakness).
Capitulation against patriarchal power models by gender or sexual orientation or religion.

There is such a plathora of active issues on the table.
Remember the USA is only 1 generation out of slavery.
 
Neddy Bate said:
Maybe senator Flake and some other senate republicans will do the right thing, before the Supreme Court of the USA becomes a laughing stock? What are the odds? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Too late.
Citizens United, the Gore v W Florida intervention - - - - we are in what sports teams call a "rebuilding phase".
 
iceaura said:
Too late.
Citizens United, the Gore v W Florida intervention - - - - we are in what sports teams call a "rebuilding phase".
Click to expand...

Thanks, I had forgotten about Bush v. Gore. Here I was naively thinking how unprecedented it would be to have a blatantly partisan 'justice' on the US Supreme Court, but we clearly had five of them back then, so it's nothing new. The 'felonious five' is what Vincent Bugliosi called them, in both None Dare Call It Treason (his article for The Nation), and in his book, The Betrayal of America.

https://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason/
 
Neddy Bate said:
Thanks, I had forgotten about Bush v. Gore. Here I was naively thinking how unprecedented it would be to have a blatantly partisan 'justice' on the US Supreme Court, but we clearly had five of them back then, so it's nothing new. The 'felonious five' is what Vincent Bugliosi called them, in both None Dare Call It Treason (his article for The Nation), and in his book, The Betrayal of America.

https://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason/
Click to expand...

going with the headlines...(helcion days for the alt-right)
if you wanted to undermine the very foundation of the US legal political system of governance...
elect a mysoginistic party animal alcaholic to the right wing supreme court as a public show to undermine womens rights and set poison amongst political support networks in the right wing to try and prevent the impending coup that will be around the next bend.

this endorses authoratarian dictatorship as a power model to clear the way for dictatorship(unchellenged) in a democracy(technically a user pays socialist fiscal oligarchich mixed market ecconomy).

so now all the white lower middle working class who put the republicans in power are asking why they are paying all that tax money for a group of old people to dress up in judges robes and do nothing for the last 3 years and get paid millions.

the FBI are still publicly in the pocket of the white house by current media articles...(after the whitehouse civil war against the agencys)

now that women have been proven to be untrustworthy liars by the senate and by the voters who chose not to back hillary... it leaves only the republican men to be in charge of all the power.
which those lower middle class white men knew all along.
it proves they were right
trump was right
and there is no place for women in mens afairs or power/leadership roles.
and
strike 1 for sticking it to the officious government by putting the agencys in their place and making them heal like dogs and for pulling the rug from out under the supreme court.
 
Anyone find a news site that's following the vote live? i.e. tracking what the vote is at now? As far as I can see, we're just waiting for three more votes to come in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top