That's a fair assessment from Mitchell. It of course isn't particularly relevant to what Kavanaugh is being considered for, which is a job interview where the standards of disqualification are far lower than the legal bar required to refer a case for prosecution.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
That's a fair assessment from Mitchell. It of course isn't particularly relevant to what Kavanaugh is being considered for, which is a job interview where the standards of disqualification are far lower than the legal bar required to refer a case for prosecution.
Exactly. Sigh. GOP gonna GOP.
She also barely spoke to Kavanaugh and when she approached something that could be remotely relevant to what Ford said (July 1st calendar entry), the GOP dropped her like a hot potato.
Also did her memo state that a prosecutor would expect a proper, unbiased investigation into the allegations to be able to make a full determination?
Probably not.
I read that she would have been obliged to inform him he was lying and she was pulled after that
As if the GOP give a feck. They'll run this (valid) account into the ground.
Flake is already on record saying that a lie is disqualifying so he will be obliged to vote no if its found he lied about anything. Collins and Murkowski are already no votes imo.
It's been moved out of committee though so it's not like they can ask him anything else, like did you lie about Devil's Triangle.
Assuming they give a shit about keeping their word. Obviously you are going with the most logical conclusion but it's also worth noting that these guys do crazy mental gymnastics when it comes to decisions like this. Healthcare was perhaps a different issue with it directly affecting multiple lives but people don't give a shit about SC judges unlike you and me. That's my reading of it that if push comes to shove, they will vote him no matter what to get to 50 votes and get Pence vote in for the tiebreaker
Flake didn't give any indication to what he'd see a contradictory evidence. I doubt the FBI are going to come out and say he was flat out lying about anything.
I struggle to understand how anyone would genuinely believe he is innocent after that "performance", or even worse how anyone can think that he should be appointed.
But then again, I never could understand how a country let Donald Trump get to power.
But then again, I never could understand how a country let Donald Trump get to power.
See the last 10 seconds of the 60 minutes interview. He said lying means its over, so if any lies are uncovered then he will be under immense pressure to vote no....as will the other three Senators.
You are right, the standard simply is reasonable doubts. I don't know how reliable are the people that are affirming that he was an heavy drinker but if they are reliable then he is a liar and all his words should be doubted.
Last edited:
Yep. That's precisely why lying is disqualifying as lying about one thing generally means a person is amenable to lying about others.
So, does the fact/assumption that he was a heavy drinker disqualify him from the job?
Also, I understand that him lying to the committee is a serious obstacle in his nomination, but couldn't it be that he was both a heavy-drinker by some type of standard and, at the same time, right in saying he never drunk to the point of blacking-out (or whatever he said about his drinking habits)?
Also, I understand that him lying to the committee is a serious obstacle in his nomination, but couldn't it be that he was both a heavy-drinker by some type of standard and, at the same time, right in saying he never drunk to the point of blacking-out (or whatever he said about his drinking habits)?
Having seen him in action now, I don’t care whether he did it or not(which it’s clear as day he definitely absolutely 100% did). His personality, attitude and weirdness about calendars should exclude him from contention. That is a fecking weird dude, and he has no business being anywhere near making decisions about what to get at McDonald’s never mind anything about law and the constitution.
If he drank so much shouldn't there be some DUI tickets they can scour for? Of course one can plead them down to moving violations especially if they have the money but its possibly something to look into.
This was apparently a fake tweet that went viral
We’ve multiple account of people who knew him in college, including his own roommate who said he was belligerent and aggressive when drunk and didn’t remember it the morning after.
There will probably be people scouring the internet for any connection to the Democrats to discredit them like they did with Ford.
Democrats have fallen into a trap here. He will be approved, republicans will say that investigated and that'll be it.
Can you explain how they fell into a trap?
A selection of comments I heard from females calling into conservative talk radio (most sounded like East Coast accented senior citizen women)
"Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were so awful, so disrespectful and rude to Kavanaugh"
"Kavanaugh is having his life destroyed all because of phony allegations paid for by George Soros"
"Dr. Ford is clearly not credible because anyone in her position would have shouted or spit on Mark Judge when she saw him in the supermarket"
"The Republicans need to fight the Democrats harder like Trump. Republican Senators are cowards and need to stand up to the leftists more like Trump"
"Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were so awful, so disrespectful and rude to Kavanaugh"
"Kavanaugh is having his life destroyed all because of phony allegations paid for by George Soros"
"Dr. Ford is clearly not credible because anyone in her position would have shouted or spit on Mark Judge when she saw him in the supermarket"
"The Republicans need to fight the Democrats harder like Trump. Republican Senators are cowards and need to stand up to the leftists more like Trump"
Sounds like a classic case of someone under the spell of Fox News - old, easily led, and generally prone to conspiracy theories and fact free propaganda.
There’s just too much to go through
Did he actually state under oath, that «Devil’s Triangle» is a drinking game?Old clip on the heels of yesterday's revelation that she was once herself a victim....
Yeah, said it was "like quarters"There’s just too much to go through
He should be toast then, considering what Flake said about lying to the committee. I’m not holding my breath though!
If anyone's fallen into a trap it's Republicans with the "if he's lied, he's out" line.
Exactly.
You lie under oath, you have perjured yourself.
There is no 'little lie' and 'big lie'.
People are putting too much faith in this. The question was "if he was shown to have lied to the committee", which was asked while they were talking about the effects of the FBI investigation. The inference being if the FBI proves he lied, then it's over. But that's a pretty big if. I highly doubt the FBI is going to investigate whether he ever played a drinking game called devil's triangle in high school. It's a blatant lie, but the scope of the investigation will make sure it's off limits.
If Flake truly felt that way, he should already be on record saying he's a firm no as Kavanaugh has already lied. And he's more than capable of going back on that statement.
I know not everyone will be a fan of John Oliver, but he did great job of tearing apart Kavanaugh's testimony on Last Week Tonight last night.
Yep, pretty clear from it that she only testified for the free polygraph.
You cant be on the supreme court bart o'kavanaugh! You're a leprachaun! Leprauchauns protect their gold bart!
His point about the blind partisanship Kavanaugh openly shouted about is insane in how it's being completely ignored.
I'd think it was insane if the Republicans hadn't done the exact same thing with any other major candidate of theirs for the last four years.
His point about the blind partisanship Kavanaugh openly shouted about is insane in how it's being completely ignored.