lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 23:11:59 GMT
Fine Feinstein was able to address the character assasination she has been subject to all afternoon. And when Dr. Ford spoke this morning, stating that she discussed it with friends, I suspected that one of her friends leaked the letter. Kamala is specifically asking Kavanaugh for a FBI investigation, still not answering. If nothing else, this makes me think he is guilty. I'm thinking, too, that it might have been one of her friends. The other suspicion I had was maybe someone in Eshoo's office. I don't know if Ford's letter was handled exclusively by Eshoo before being given to Feinstein.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 27, 2018 23:13:36 GMT
Klobuchar ask the president to open the FBI investigation. Him, YOU are investigating. Has Judge spoken to them.. Him, he has answered questions, signed a sworn statement. I'm a little concerned that a judge would consider questioning only the accuser and accused as an investigation at all, much less an effective one.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 23:15:27 GMT
I agree in the general sense that things done as a teen shouldn't automatically be a disqualifier. Drank too much? Smoked weed? Shoplifter? Cheated on a math test? Yeah, he'd get a pass. However, sexual assault? For me, that wouldn't get a pass...even all these years later. I agree! This wasn't some stupid HS prank. We all did stupid things when we were in HS and none of that should overshadow whatever good we've achieved thereafter. But that's not the point. The point is this was sexual assault, a despicable act that was never acknowledged, never apologized for, never shown remorse for. And, to top it all off, they could (but won't) get Mark Judge in (she stated he was a witness to all this) to make his own "testimony". He's in hiding.
And, to add to that, they could (but won't) hear the rest of the women whom have also come forward with accusations against Kavanaugh, but the repubs have already made up their minds to install him, without ever having heard the others. Say that again---without having heard the others.
And, even further, they could (but won't) ask for any FBI investigation.
And finally, they could (but won't) hold hearings for another candidate. They have Kavanaugh committed to their agenda. They know it. He knows it. They cannot risk another conservative candidate that might not be everything for their "side". They have already paid for Kavanaugh, he's been being groomed for years for this position, they have invested a lot of cash into his guarantee of getting on the highest court. The WH, GOP, Koch Bros, Murdoch have invested so much into him. (and likely paid off his debts).
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:17:46 GMT
and they're very OPEN about the fact that the reason they're rushing is because of the midterm elections coming up. If they think he's such a 'GREAT" candidate, it shouldn't matter who the majority is, now, should it?!? hmmm??
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 27, 2018 23:17:47 GMT
Question: How likely is it that Kavanaugh has never had a situation where he drank to the point of passing out, or not having full memory? I was raised Mormon, and have only started drinking in the last few years. I only drink 1-2 times a month, and have never been drunk or hungover. The vast majority of my friends don’t drink, so I have a very distorted experience. But I guess I always figured that it was sort of a right of passage... that most people had times where they drank that much. Is it realistic that someone who liked beer as much as he says he did, and was drinking that often, at that young of an age, would NEVER have that happen? In my largish school in Austin, Tx late 80s/early 90s it was not uncommon at all to drink to the point of passing out. Especially with the rich, party hard crowd that would most resemble Kavanaugh's crew. Eta: I realize my statement "not uncommon" might not get across the point that it was a very frequent occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 27, 2018 23:20:17 GMT
And finally, they could (but won't) hold hearings for another candidate. They have Kavanaugh committed to their agenda. They know it. He knows it. They cannot risk another conservative candidate that might not be everything for their "side". They have already paid for Kavanaugh, he's been being groomed for years for this position, they have invested a lot of cash into his guarantee of getting on the highest court. The WH, GOP, Koch Bros, Murdoch have invested so much into him. (and likely paid off his debts). You got it! Bought and paid for!!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 23:20:23 GMT
Interesting takes from the hearing (or whatever it is being called)
"Rachel Mitchell, the independent prosecutor brought in by Grassley to ask the questions on behalf of the Republican senators, seemed to have two goals in her questioning:
Trying to find holes in Ford's story of the night in which she said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her Trying to find any sort of instance where Democrats urged Ford to come forward or coached her on her story or her testimony"
The plan, from the start of the hearing, was that Mitchell would handle the questioning of both Ford and Kavanaugh for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. And as I noted above, that's what happened in the Ford questioning. Each Republican senator ceded their five minutes to Mitchell and she pursued a largely unsuccessful attempt to poke holes in Ford's recollection of the night the alleged assault happened.
And that's how the questioning began in Kavanaugh's testimony. Mitchell asked a series of questions of Kavanaugh about his drinking habits, his calendar from 1982 and other details about that time of his life. Then, suddenly, it stopped. Graham began the trend, claiming his five minutes to lambaste Democrats for their handling of the allegations against Kavanaugh. Then Texas Sen. John Cornyn followed suit. And Orrin Hatch of Utah. And Mike Lee. And Nebraska's Ben Sasse. And Idaho's Mike Crapo. Throughout all of these Republican senators asking questions, Mitchell simply sat and waited. No explanation was given for why the initial plan to allow her to ask the questions had been abandoned. The reason, at least to me, seemed somewhat obvious: Republicans saw that the hearing -- both Ford's testimony and the start of Kavanaugh's -- was heading in a bad direction for their side and their hopes of salvaging his nomination. So they decided to take matters into their own hands. I'm very interested to see if Republicans offer any other -- less political -- explanation for their decision to effectively call an audible in the middle of the most high-profile congressional hearing in decades."
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:20:33 GMT
Question: How likely is it that Kavanaugh has never had a situation where he drank to the point of passing out, or not having full memory? I was raised Mormon, and have only started drinking in the last few years. I only drink 1-2 times a month, and have never been drunk or hungover. The vast majority of my friends don’t drink, so I have a very distorted experience. But I guess I always figured that it was sort of a right of passage... that most people had times where they drank that much. Is it realistic that someone who liked beer as much as he says he did, and was drinking that often, at that young of an age, would NEVER have that happen? In my largish school in Austin, Tx late 80s/early 90s it was not uncommon at all to drink to the point of passing out. Especially with the rich, party hard crowd that would most resemble Kavanaugh's crew. I grew up in small town Illinois, and drinking on the weekends was pretty much the only thing to do without driving 30 miles to a fast food restaurant or to a movie theater. I remember one party that was for someone's 19th birthday party, and his 'present' was drinking 19 shots of root beer schnapps. I'm pretty sure he didn't remember much of that the next morning, for sure. I've seen people drink to the point of passing out quite often... or 'just falling asleep' as Brett Kavanaugh put it. And 'I like beer' Kavanaugh could still get pretty shit-faced drunk on beer; but really, we're supposed to think they partied in people's houses without the parents around, in the 1980s, but NEVER drank any of the hard stuff from the liquor cabinet? come on.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 23:22:38 GMT
I can say with 100% certainty, that the repubs in the Senate Committee lied, lied, lied, lied, when they stated that they wanted to have a "fair and balanced" hearing on this matter.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Sept 27, 2018 23:23:08 GMT
You know, if I had to give a bottom-line impression of today’s events, I would use the word dignified.
I would expect the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to behave in a dignified manner.
One of the people testifying before the committee today behaved in such a manner, and one didn’t.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,812
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 27, 2018 23:25:22 GMT
What do you think about his refusal to answer questions and his dishonesty about what comments in his yearbook mean? He refused to answer many questions from democratic Senators. He also refused to acknowledge the clear meaning of several of the yearbook comments about drinking and sexual activity. Claiming to be an alumni of a girl clearly does not mean you were good friends. It clearly has a sexual meaning thank you for saying that! It completely astonishes me that people can support him, knowing that he has lied (prior to this), refuses to answer the questions now, did not answer questions (asked by the Democratic Senators) in his hearings last week, has questionable payment of debt, and has refused to turn over the paperwork being requested.
And then to say "if you are a Democrat it would not matter what he said you were not going to believe him". It is madness, that conservatives/repubs, knowing all this refusal are more than happy to give him a pass and say you poor man, you've been through so much.
it is truly unbelievable the levels that repubs are going to with lying, cheating the system, lying some more, and obstruct the process.
unfuckingbelievable.
Yea, that is BS. I am not a democrat.
I've said it before...this should NOT be a political issue. It is a human decency issue. I was watching the hearing earlier on CSPAN, and they had people call in during breaks. There were 3 separate call in lines for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Pretty much everyone who called in from the Republican line was in support of Kavanaugh, and pretty much everyone who called in on the Democratic line was in support of Ford. I don't get it...how can so many people listen to the same exact things and have such completely conflicting views, along party lines?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 23:27:55 GMT
I agree! This wasn't some stupid HS prank. We all did stupid things when we were in HS and none of that should overshadow whatever good we've achieved thereafter. But that's not the point. The point is this was sexual assault, a despicable act that was never acknowledged, never apologized for, never shown remorse for. And, to top it all off, they could (but won't) get Mark Judge in (she stated he was a witness to all this) to make his own "testimony". He's in hiding.
I've never, ever seen a hearing where the primary witness has not been called to testify. I know this was not a court trial, but if the goal was to SEEK THE TRUTH, all witnesses should testify under oath. To insist otherwise proves this was merely to give the impression they're not anti-women, that they're not insensitive to sexual misconduct. I'm glad Sen Whitehouse gave Ford the assurance that he will do everything in his power to get a full and proper investigation of her claims regardless of how the hearing concludes.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:28:28 GMT
You know, if I had to give a bottom-line impression of today’s events, I would use the word dignified. I would expect the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to behave in a dignified manner. One of the people testifying before the committee today behaved in such a manner, and one didn’t. too bad the one that was being dignified ISN'T the one that's going to be the next SCOTUS Justice...
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 23:28:52 GMT
This is perfection!!!
By Alexandra Petri Columnist September 27 at 5:20 PM
HOW DARE YOU?! HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO BRETT KAVANAUGH? HOW DARE YOU DENY HIM THIS SEAT?!
Listen, NO, YOU listen! Do you know who Brett Kavanaugh is? Brett Kavanaugh went to Georgetown Prep! BRETT KAVANAUGH IS AN OPTIMIST WHO LOOKS ON THE SUNSHINE SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN! BRETT KAVANAUGH IS NOT YELLING! YOU’RE YELLING!
If Brett does not secure a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, this country will be IN SHAMBLES! THIS IS HIS BIRTHRIGHT! Do you know how embarrassing it is for a Georgetown Prep graduate to NOT be on the Supreme Court? They are literally 12 PERCENT of the court! THIS IS PROBABLY THE WORST INDIGNITY YOU CAN INFLICT ON A HUMAN BEING!
ALL BRETT IS ASKING FOR IS DUE PROCESS! DUE PROCESS BEFORE HE IS DEPRIVED OF HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO A SEAT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, WHERE HE WILL DETERMINE THE FATES OF MILLIONS! ADVERTISING
Apply the standard you want to apply to your husband-brother-son. He should be allowed to be careless. He should be allowed to like beer. BRETT LIKES BEER! WHO DOESN’T LIKE BEER! BRETT ISN’T YELLING! YOU’RE YELLING! THIS IS A CON JOB! THIS IS A FARCE! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED! THIS IS BRETT’S SEAT!
The Founders did not break from Britain so a landed white gentleman accused of sexual misconduct could NOT be given FREE REIN over the lives of millions!
If you give this woman credence, you will start a terrible trend. THINK OF ALL THE CARELESS PREP SCHOOL BOYS WHO WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND! WOMEN WHO HAVE SUFFERED TRAUMA WILL BE ALLOWED TO GET ON PLANES WILLY-NILLY — EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE FRIGHTENED!
You are going to deny a qualified man. The treasurer of Keg Club — DO YOU HEAR HIM, HE WAS KEG CLUB TREASURER! AND A RENATE ALUMNIUS! HOW DARE YOU DENY A KEG CLUB TREASURER AND RENATE ALUMNIUS A SUPREME COURT SEAT?!
ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE HER, AMERICA? OVER HIM, AMERICA?
YOU HEARD THE WOMAN! SHE DOESN’T EVEN LIKE TO FLY! YET SHE FLEW HERE! SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER ALL THE DETAILS OF THE EVENING, WHEREAS HE KEPT A CALENDAR, LIKE HIS FATHER BEFORE HIM!
HE IS NOT EMOTIONAL! YOU ARE EMOTIONAL! NO, YOU LISTEN!
If this is how you are going to behave, if you are going to believe this woman, if you will let her stand there and destroy his life (well, not his life, technically, nor his freedom, just his chance of a seat on the highest court in the land), then what kind of country is this going to be?
They are going to drag him here in front of all these OTHER MEN and deny him a seat on the Supreme Court, and he will have to walk home confused and disoriented, and he will have to live with the feeling that he is NOT ON THE SUPREME COURT for as long as he lives. Whenever he gets on a plane and sits in his seat, he will think of the seat HE IS NOT IN.
This is OPPRESSION! TO BE DENIED POWER OVER OTHERS! IF THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS, DO NOT TELL ME.
He should be given exactly as much benefit of the doubt as we would not give a black man shot in his own apartment by police. HE DESERVES IT! IT IS HIS BIRTHRIGHT. HE WENT TO GEORGETOWN PREP.
As President Trump said, “This is beyond Supreme Court. This is everything to do with our country. When you are guilty until proven innocent, it’s just not supposed to be that way. Always I’ve heard you’re innocent until proven guilty. I’ve heard this so long. It’s such a beautiful phrase. In this case, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I think that is a very dangerous standard for our country.”
IT IS TRUE! No man should be deprived of his life, liberty or the deciding seat on the highest court in the land without DUE PROCESS. THIS SHOULD BE HIS. The right to decide the fates of millions is one a man like him is born with, ONE OF THOSE INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FROM HIM WITHOUT BEAUTIFUL DUE PROCESS!
NOW HIS WORLD IS FALLING APART! NOW HE IS BEING FORCED TO GO OVER HIS HIGH SCHOOL BEHAVIOR WITH A FINE-TOOTHED COMB! THIS IS NOT FAIR! THIS SCRUTINY! THIS DEMAND TO ACCOUNT! HE DESERVES THIS POWER! GIVE IT TO HIM! STOP ASKING HIM THESE QUESTIONS! STOP TRYING TO SLOW THIS TRAIN DOWN! THIS TRAIN HAD BETTER GET WHERE IT IS GOING, OR SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN!
STOP SAYING THINGS! SHHH! BE QUIET! STOP RESISTING BRETT KAVANAUGH. STOP TRYING TO STOP HIM. NO, LISTEN! LISTEN!
HE DESERVES THIS!
LISTEN, YOU DON’T DESERVE THIS. AMERICA DOESN’T DESERVE BRETT KAVANAUGH ON THE SUPREME COURT.
IF THIS IS HOW AMERICA IS GOING TO BEHAVE, IT DOESN’T DESERVE BRETT KAVANAUGH AT ALL!
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,795
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 27, 2018 23:33:54 GMT
In my largish school in Austin, Tx late 80s/early 90s it was not uncommon at all to drink to the point of passing out. Especially with the rich, party hard crowd that would most resemble Kavanaugh's crew. I grew up in small town Illinois, and drinking on the weekends was pretty much the only thing to do without driving 30 miles to a fast food restaurant or to a movie theater. I remember one party that was for someone's 19th birthday party, and his 'present' was drinking 19 shots of root beer schnapps. I'm pretty sure he didn't remember much of that the next morning, for sure. I've seen people drink to the point of passing out quite often... or 'just falling asleep' as Brett Kavanaugh put it. And 'I like beer' Kavanaugh could still get pretty shit-faced drunk on beer; but really, we're supposed to think they partied in people's houses without the parents around, in the 1980s, but NEVER drank any of the hard stuff from the liquor cabinet? come on. That's what I thought when I heard him say that. yeah, I've heard that term used by people before when they went out like a light. I just "fell asleep". Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto! Weird how that term is usually used by the heavier drinkers...
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 27, 2018 23:33:54 GMT
Interesting how the letter leaked to the press anyway forcing it's eventual official release. It is interesting, but we don’t know who leaked it. We do know that Senator Feinstein was constrained by confidentiality, so I don’t get the continual blame for “sitting on it.” Ted Cruz right now is saying she could have let the committee know and they would have investigated it and preserved anonymity. I’d be interested to hear how they would have pulled off an investigation like that. I'd like to understand exactly who Feinstein was required to keep the information from. Cruz is saying she could have let the committee know, but could she? And why would the committee be in charge of the investigation and not the FBI? Also, as a Texan I'd like to know if Cruz questioned her. With his race being so close I wondered if they were going to try and keep him from that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 9:14:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 23:34:11 GMT
while I was driving to work and listening to this on the radio, Senator Grassley was giving his remarks. I was struck by just HOW MUCH his voice reminded me of a querulous old man, and it very much reminded me of my dad. BUT-- My dad is 88 and retired. These OLD MEN should not be representing us. They wouldn't be if more young people would VOTE!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 9:14:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 23:39:07 GMT
I think it’s very telling that all the GOP senator have apologize to judge Cavanagh for what he has been through and none of them have apologize to Dr Ford . If they elect him I think that will be a price to pay for them in November. Like a pea said up thread....they are willing to give it all up for a generational term of control to the SC.
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,262
Jun 25, 2014 20:22:13 GMT
|
Post by huskergal on Sept 27, 2018 23:41:23 GMT
I don't trust someone that won't answer a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 23:41:30 GMT
Klobuchar ask the president to open the FBI investigation. Him, YOU are investigating. Has Judge spoken to them.. Him, he has answered questions, signed a sworn statement. Nope. Kavanaugh is mistaken. Judge did submit a statement but it was not signed by him. It was signed by his lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by denda on Sept 27, 2018 23:43:42 GMT
I don't have a clue what any of those things mean. And, no, I don't like when people will not answer a question. Maybe you should read up on all that information before saying you believe him. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:45:01 GMT
I don't trust someone that won't answer a simple "Yes" or "No" question. he reminded me of the time Manafort was asked about something (outrageous) that Trump said, and he stumbled all over his answer, "uh... uh...well, if that's what he said, then... uhhh- yes- that's what he said." Because even when they asked Kavanaugh VERY DIRECTLY-- Corey Booker and Kamala Harris both tried, very hard-- and said 'only answer the question yes, or no' he STILL replied with 'but- but-- all these people say they like me!' 'all these people say they didn't see it happen!' just so HE wouldn't have to answer the question himself.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,795
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 27, 2018 23:46:19 GMT
while I was driving to work and listening to this on the radio, Senator Grassley was giving his remarks. I was struck by just HOW MUCH his voice reminded me of a querulous old man, and it very much reminded me of my dad. BUT-- My dad is 88 and retired. These OLD MEN should not be representing us. They wouldn't be if more young people would VOTE! I know someone got reprimanded upthread here or on another thread for bringing up age of the senators but I found myself (no spring chicken) saying out loud to myself today, "we need to get those old people out". and then I checked myself for being ageist. Then I realized it wasn't the age as much as the out.of.touch. Some of them have been there so long with little reaching out to or experiencing the current "real world" that they are stuck in a rut (or time warp) resistant to any change. Cuz I've witnessed some hip and in-the-know old people that have some really good ideas. They are out there experiencing things and listening to (gasp!) young people even! Some of those in congress aren't. Stuck in the year of their election maybe? ETA all the young'uns 'round here are primed and ready to vote.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 27, 2018 23:48:53 GMT
Klobuchar ask the president to open the FBI investigation. Him, YOU are investigating. Has Judge spoken to them.. Him, he has answered questions, signed a sworn statement. Nope. Kavanaugh is mistaken. Judge did submit a statement but it was not signed by him. It was signed by his lawyer. Can you explain why it matters that he didn't sign it in technical/legal terms? I see the big red flag, but don't understand the legal implications.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:52:43 GMT
and then I checked myself for being ageist. Then I realized it wasn't the age as much as the out.of.touch. Some of them have been there so long with little reaching out to or experiencing the current "real world" that they are stuck in a rut (or time warp) resistant to any change. YES- THIS, exactly!! (it brings to mind when people wanted town hall meetings with their representatives and they hid from them- if you can't even face your constituents, or see what THEIR lives are ACTUALLY like, then you shouldn't be representing them.) But if people (mostly old white men, but okay, there's probably some women, too) have been there SOOOO long, I think they're bound to start seeing it as more of a career for them, rather than being a public servant who's representing their constituents. I'm dreaming, though- because to change that would mean both term limits (which they would NEVER vote for, for themselves) and no taking any corporate money, and no needing to spend millions campaigning (so you don't have to be RICH to actually GET in Congress).
|
|
|
Post by jackietex on Sept 27, 2018 23:53:02 GMT
Question: How likely is it that Kavanaugh has never had a situation where he drank to the point of passing out, or not having full memory? I was raised Mormon, and have only started drinking in the last few years. I only drink 1-2 times a month, and have never been drunk or hungover. The vast majority of my friends don’t drink, so I have a very distorted experience. But I guess I always figured that it was sort of a right of passage... that most people had times where they drank that much. Is it realistic that someone who liked beer as much as he says he did, and was drinking that often, at that young of an age, would NEVER have that happen? In my largish school in Austin, Tx late 80s/early 90s it was not uncommon at all to drink to the point of passing out. Especially with the rich, party hard crowd that would most resemble Kavanaugh's crew. Eta: I realize my statement "not uncommon" might not get across the point that it was a very frequent occurrence. I graduated from Westlake in 1982, and although I wasn't in the party crowd, I'm sure it was the same.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,795
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 27, 2018 23:54:07 GMT
I don't trust someone that won't answer a simple "Yes" or "No" question. he reminded me of the time Manafort was asked about something (outrageous) that Trump said, and he stumbled all over his answer, "uh... uh...well, if that's what he said, then... uhhh- yes- that's what he said." Because even when they asked Kavanaugh VERY DIRECTLY-- Corey Booker and Kamala Harris both tried, very hard-- and said 'only answer the question yes, or no' he STILL replied with 'but- but-- all these people say they like me!' 'all these people say they didn't see it happen!' just so HE wouldn't have to answer the question himself. (sorry for 2 in a row posts... don't know how to quote multiples well.) I was also sick of his verbatim, repeated answers to things. Even when not asked. One was "I'd do whatever the committee recommends" when asked if further FBI investigation warranted. and the "all the witnesses signed letters under penalty of felony" one. over and over. Q: "We should talk to mr judge, dontcha think?" A: Regurgitate second answer. over rehearsed non-answers IMO.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 23:57:21 GMT
They wouldn't be if more young people would VOTE! I know someone got reprimanded upthread here or on another thread for bringing up age of the senators but I found myself (no spring chicken) saying out loud to myself today, "we need to get those old people out". and then I checked myself for being ageist. Then I realized it wasn't the age as much as the out.of.touch. Some of them have been there so long with little reaching out to or experiencing the current "real world" that they are stuck in a rut (or time warp) resistant to any change. Cuz I've witnessed some hip and in-the-know old people that have some really good ideas. They are out there experiencing things and listening to (gasp!) young people even! Some of those in congress aren't. Stuck in the year of their election maybe? ETA all the young'uns 'round here are primed and ready to vote. I agree with this--It is not the age that I think that she fully meant, it was that they are not truly representative of their constituents. And sometimes, when they have been in that position for a lifetime, with no limits, they can get complacent, or are so used to being supportive of the big dollar donations (which is usually corporate and special interests), that they are truly no longer for the people. I know "older" politicians who kick ass, so it is not so much about the age.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 23:58:48 GMT
Can you explain why it matters that he didn't sign it in technical/legal terms? I see the big red flag, but don't understand the legal implications. I'm going to just guess, and say the letter was 'I'm swearing that Mr. Judge told me X, Y, and Z' which gives Mr. Judge himself an out. He didn't necessarily have to tell the truth under penalty of law, because it wasn't HIS signature. The lawyer is only attesting to the content being what Judge told him. (that's just a guess) ETA: I remember, very clearly, when I worked for a large pharmaceutical firm and there would sometimes be lawsuits out there in the ether-- I worked at the corporate headquarters-- we were told very emphatically that if we were ever approached by anyone- for information about anything- to NEVER sign an affidavit because it would be admissible in court as us agreeing with whatever it included. Mr. Judge was NOT the one who signed his letter, so HE can't be held personally to any standard of truthfulness about its content.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 23:59:39 GMT
Nope. Kavanaugh is mistaken. Judge did submit a statement but it was not signed by him. It was signed by his lawyer. Can you explain why it matters that he didn't sign it in technical/legal terms? I see the big red flag, but don't understand the legal implications. Simply because it's not a sworn statement or a sworn declaration. If Judge did not sign it, it has no validity in any court of law. If that document is presented as proof, it will be invalidated as hearsay.
|
|