International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332154)

Meadmaker 28th September 2018 09:34 PM

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh
 
Mod InfoThis is a continuation thread. Part I may be found here. It may be freely quoted and referenced in this thread.
Posted By:Loss Leader



Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12446312)
Are you saying that both attended the SAME Prep school? Seriously?

Yes. Gorsuch was a sophomore when Kavanaugh was a senior.

(Or so I've read. Off to Wikipedia to be sure.....)

ETA: Yep. Georgetown Prep. Kavanaugh graduated in 83, Gorsuch in 85.

Foolmewunz 28th September 2018 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by River (Post 12445697)
Apparently the chair of the committee agrees with my perception of it, not yours. The ABA is a volunteer private organization entitled to their opinion like any other regardless of who or what they support.

Apparently the Republican Chair of the Let's Railroad Through a Foul Conservative Rapey Guy Committee agrees with you.

Bu... bu.... doesn't he know you voted for Obama?

(Hint: This is guerrilla theater. Neither statement has any validity.)

Beelzebuddy 28th September 2018 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12446339)
Ok, so how about we go by the same standards we use ourselves in different situations, instead of comparing two sets of standards used by two sets of other people?


When Bill Clinton lied about his sex life, I was totally unconcerned, and thought the Republicans looked ridiculous for impeaching him and trying him. In this case, if I found that Brett Kavanaugh lied about the assault allegations, I would say throw the bum out, because that was the central and significant issue that was being investigated. If he was less than forthcoming and a bit weaselly about how much he drank 2/3 of his lifetime ago.....meh. The senators' questions were worse than the nominee's lies.


And it doesn't mean that I approve of Bill Clinton's lies or Brett Kavanaugh's lies. I don't even understand Kavanaugh's. They were about things 35 years ago, and made him look like a doofus, which is not exactly an endearing quality in a Supreme Court Justice, but when I hear "Perjury!", I think back to a similar situation 20 years ago, and remember how I explained to people that not all lies under oath are perjury. It's only perjury when it is something material to a case.

The accusation is that he tried to rape someone while piss-drunk. The lie is that he never drank that much and he never blacked out, despite literally everyone who knew him back then describing him as a blackout, belligerent drunk.

It is entirely material to the case.

[ETA] Oh also
Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12446339)
Ok, so how about we go by the same standards we use ourselves in different situations, instead of comparing two sets of standards used by two sets of other people?

Speaking of going by the same standards we use ourselves, you are familiar with Kavanaugh's role in the Clinton hearings, right?

acbytesla 28th September 2018 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12446331)

Anyway, my main point wasn't specifically about his anger and whether it was justified, but about anger in general. It's just frowned upon these days. Expressing anger is taboo. Remember, "Have you no shame, Senator?" That guy was pretty angry. I think a lot of people these days would figure he must have actually been a communist. What about the fictional scene in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? I guess it wouldn't play well these days. No anger allowed.

Of course, it's odd. Some displays of anger are ok or at least understandable. I don't think it applies on this board, but I heard various talking heads express sympathy with people shouting and screaming from the public seats during the regular hearings. I guess it's ok to be angry sometimes.

I think if you go back and watch the exchange between Joe Welch and Joe McCarthy, you will notice a huge difference between Welch's demeanor and Kavanaugh. Welch was angry but controlled and his voice barely rose. I've seen plenty of times where distinguished people in power getting angry. Kavanaugh needs to show some self control.

acbytesla 28th September 2018 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12446342)
Yes. Gorsuch was a sophomore when Kavanaugh was a senior.

(Or so I've read. Off to Wikipedia to be sure.....)

ETA: Yep. Georgetown Prep. Kavanaugh graduated in 83, Gorsuch in 85.

Two right wing white turds defecated by the same privileged private high school. Amazing.

turingtest 28th September 2018 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows (Post 12446306)
Christine Ford's bank records would show payment to the contractor who installed the escape door in her house. She gave testimony under oath that the work was done in 2012, and then she subsequently had to attend marriage counseling over the episode.

If it turns out the work was done in 2008, she committed perjury.

Did she? Can you quote the part of her testimony where she said that? This is what I found:

Quote:

Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone -- the specific details -- until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.
The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.
In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.
That's from her opening testimony. The only things she says happened in 2012 were the counseling session and, during that session, her explanation to her husband for why she wanted the second door, which is when he heard the details of her experience with Kavanaugh for the first time. The work putting up the door could have been done anytime in the previous four years, and nothing she says contradicts that. (In fact, "very extensive and very long remodel" supports what stacyhs said earlier, that the remodel could indeed have begun as long ago as that)

Now it's possible that she said something during the later questioning to the effect of "the work on the door was done in 2012," and I haven't seen it. If so, you can show me. But if not- no, sorry, you can't charge someone with perjury based on the fact that you either don't actually know what they said or just have the reading-comprehension skills of a slow first-grader.

Bob001 28th September 2018 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12446312)
Are you saying that both attended the SAME Prep school? Seriously?

Yes.
Quote:

The elite high school also graduated President Donald Trump's other Supreme Court appointee, Neil Gorsuch, and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...920-story.html

Bob001 28th September 2018 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 12446345)
The accusation is that he tried to rape someone while piss-drunk. The lie is that he never drank that much and he never blacked out, despite literally everyone who knew him back then describing him as a blackout, belligerent drunk.
....

Let's never forget that as bad as the (attempted) sexual assault was, what traumatized her was that he (allegedly) covered her face and she couldn't breathe. She says she thought he might kill her. That's way beyond a teenage prank.

Foolmewunz 28th September 2018 10:37 PM

I was mid-reading when the mods split the thread to silence the brilliant arguments by the conservative caucus due to length. Where I left off we were a-speculating on Flake/McConnel/Trump actions and why.

Take it all back to Flake. He only voted the bill out of committee if he had confirmation that McConnell was going to ask the White House for investigation. His threat to vote No meant nothing. He had at least two more votes and would've made the No vote Pence-proof.

McConnell knew that or he never would've agreed. Lindsey knew it, and as he's the one who speaks Turdblossomese, Trump now knows it.

It's optics. They were going to get screwed so are now trying to appear to be Solomon-like.


Trump, in his fevered presser the other day, said he was interested to hear her out. The spittle on Lindsey's chin hadn't dried up before he tweeted support for Rapeydrunk Judge. Three hours later he had someone write something nice about the lying harlot. Did they consciously juxtapose incredible and credible? Or were they 'aving the leetle joke, eh? Donnie probably altered enough report cards and assessments in his time.

"In the course so far, Cadet Bonestars has proven incapable of grasping the basic material in the course."

Skeptic Ginger 28th September 2018 10:41 PM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post12446302
Quote:

Originally Posted by abcytesla
It really isn't much of a gamble. And there is a 60 plus percent chance they hold on to the Senate. Are you telling me the Republicans don't have a half dozen suitable candidates on the shelf right this moment?

It's Trump that is picking the next in line, not the GOP. But The Federalist Society most certainly has the list Trump is choosing from.

It appears McConnell may also want his right wing minion on the bench ASAP.

I don't know, I just know McConnell is insisting on ramming this appointment through.

Is it just knee-jerk on McConnell's part? You tell me what you think?

Elagabalus 28th September 2018 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows (Post 12446006)
Just like phony allegations are "good pretty much forever."

When you're forced to become an ankle biter, you learn to love the taste of ankles. Bwahahahahahaha!

Skeptic Ginger 28th September 2018 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
This is the kind of thing I feared about extending the investigation. Look into every nook and cranny to find anything at all, and yell "Perjury!" a lot.

But, they will look into that, and it will be a trivial exercise to find out when it was done, and if it was indeed done in 2008, that will raise a red flag, but the FBI does this stuff for a living. They'll figure out if it's significant.

So you don't think it matters if Kavanaugh was lying today? Or in his previous confirmations which emails apparently contradicted his testimony?

Stacyhs 28th September 2018 10:51 PM

Dr. Ford wanting another door is not unsurprising. When my mother added on a downstairs master bedroom after my dad died, she insisted on it having a door to the outside. Her reason? She said she would feel trapped if anyone ever broke in. She would only feel safe if she knew she could get out of the house quickly directly from the bedroom. Dr. Ford must have felt trapped in that bedroom in 1982.

Bob001 28th September 2018 10:54 PM

Apparently when he was nominated to the appeals court in 2006, the ABA had some reservations about Kav:
Quote:

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c2d4aab9a7f8

Bob001 28th September 2018 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12446371)
Dr. Ford wanting another door is not unsurprising. When my mother added on a downstairs master bedroom after my dad died, she insisted on it having a door to the outside. er reason? She said she would feel trapped if anyone ever broke in. She would only feel safe if she knew she could get out of the house quickly directly from the bedroom. Dr. Ford must have felt trapped in that bedroom in 1982.

Not to digress, but I would fear an door directly from the outside into the bedroom could be used by intruders to break in. How many locks were on the door?

Stacyhs 28th September 2018 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12446372)
Apparently when he was nominated to the appeals court in 2006, the ABA had some reservations about Kav:

Quote:

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c2d4aab9a7f8

After K's rant about the Dems being out to get him and it being revenge for Clinton, I don't think he could be balanced and fair with anything Dem supported.

Stacyhs 28th September 2018 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12446373)
Not to digress, but I would fear an door directly from the outside into the bedroom could be used by intruders to break in. How many locks were on the door?

There was a regular lock and a deadbolt. It was about how she felt, what gave her a sense of security. Having the door did. She also worried about fire as there was no egress from the upstairs and she could not go down the stairs quickly at her age.

Cain 28th September 2018 11:07 PM

2024: Kavanaugh for President.

kellyb 28th September 2018 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12446375)
There was a regular lock and a deadbolt. It was about how she felt, what gave her a sense of security. Having the door did. She also worried about fire as there was no egress from the upstairs and she could not go down the stairs quickly at her age.

Yeah, I can totally see that, and you're almost definitely right about "Dr. Ford must have felt trapped in that bedroom in 1982." Poor lady. PTSD can fade over the years, but some part it often sticks with you for forever.

TofuFighter 28th September 2018 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSupermeercat (Post 12446150)
New SCOTUS Judge
Kavanaugh meets Jules from Pulp Fiction.

[youtube] https://youtu.be/p7Unb8_GxtM[/youtube]

:D:D that's hilarious.

The Great Zaganza 28th September 2018 11:21 PM

So what should the FBI investigation focus on?

For me, the report won't be complete without description of Kavanaugh's history of "boofing".

Stacyhs 28th September 2018 11:28 PM

Liz Swisher, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, said on Cuomo tonight that K was lying about the extent of his drinking. She said he was a "sloppy drunk". She also said the 'Ralph Club' had nothing to do with a sensitive stomach...it was about vomiting from excess alcohol. Switzer said he committed perjury and that disqualifies him from the SC.

Minoosh 28th September 2018 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12446370)
McConnell might very well be afraid if he doesn't get Kavanaugh through, he is going to get his comeuppance when the GOP loses the Senate. It's Kavanaugh or no nominee floor vote until 2020.

I don't think that would happen even if Dems got the Senate. Their nominee would probably be Merrick Garland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12446370)
And much as the news media is echoing a change in the Senate is unlikely, 538's latest polls suggest otherwise.

I'm carefully managing my expectations - it would be nice though. Maybe House races can illustrate to the Senate that bipartisanship might be in their best interests.

Minoosh 28th September 2018 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12446373)
Not to digress, but I would fear an door directly from the outside into the bedroom could be used by intruders to break in. How many locks were on the door?

For me it was always knowing I had an escape route. If he's coming in the bedroom door, you have a good shot at making it out the front door.

I lived with fear if I was alone at night in a freestanding house. I don't think it was paranoia. I made a list in another thread of the events that led to this and the measures I took. It's pretty sad.

Stacyhs 28th September 2018 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12446389)
For me it was always knowing I had an escape route. If he's coming in the bedroom door, you have a good shot at making it out the front door.

I lived with fear if I was alone at night in a freestanding house. I don't think it was paranoia. I made a list in another thread of the events that led to this and the measures I took. It's pretty sad.

I wonder how many men think about escape routes from someone breaking in?

Minoosh 29th September 2018 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12446381)
So what should the FBI investigation focus on?

For me, the report won't be complete without description of Kavanaugh's history of "boofing".

The Renate explanation deserves to be looked into, and witnesses who could testify to the extent of Kavanaugh's early drinking history. Not because it was so bad; just because it would offset his own minimizing testimony and speak to his veracity. If he did get blackout drunk - and he was extremely evasive and aggressive regarding this - it ups the chances that he doesn't remember some of his alcoholic behavior. I suppose his financial situation has been explained, but that might bear further looking into, including a timeline showing how he got into debt and out of it.

The people who have spoken to the media should probably also speak to the FBI. I'm not sure how many have been mentioned by name. Avenatti, meh, I really don't think he's got a bombshell but I might be wrong. Some senator referred to him repeatedly to disparage his statement so far, so I think he should be heard out, but only if his client really wants to.

Renate was on that list of 65 names praising Kavnaugh, so her revised opinion of him may not matter much, but she obviously didn't think it was a term of endearment.

I feel like the FBI should at least contact the character witnesses - maybe not all of them, but enough to clarify how well they actually knew him

Priests are out of bounds, which on the whole is a good thing. OTOH I'm probably missing something. I don't know if the FBI will do all this, though; probably not.

I don't think they will address the holding back of 100,000 pages of documents; not really their department. But bear in mind that George W. Bush would only have held back 27,000 pages. I believe they could reveal extreme partisanship. But I guess we already knew that.

I believe Feinstein on why allegations were held back but this needs to be discussed, since in theory she could have alerted the FBI sooner.

IMO, he should be asked why he gave an exclusive interview to Fox News.

Kavanaugh is going to hate this. Quite aside from his possible Jekyll and Hyde personality change while drinking, there are enough other indicators to me that he is not suitable to being a SC justice. But that's partly a visceral reaction; I am extremely repelled by the guy, but "seems creepy" is not evidence.

smartcooky 29th September 2018 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows (Post 12446287)
Quote:

Christine Blasey Ford told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the memories of Brett Kavanaugh “first came up” when she went into counseling in 2012. In May 2012 Ford and her husband argued over her desire to add “a second front door” to their home. Ford told the committee on Thursday the desire for a second door was because Brett Kavanaugh made her “claustrophobic.”

As Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night. The Palo Alto building permits were issued to Ford and her husband in 2008 — NOT 2012.
-- Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) Sept 27, 2018

"BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford's testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008."

-- Paul Sperry (Hoover Institute) Sept 27, 2018

Sorry this took so long to reply to this, it took me a while to dig out the records.

In the mid 2000s we did some extensive remodelling of our house.
In Nelson, when the council grants a building consent, you have 12 months to begin the works.

We tried to have each stage completed by Christmas of each year.

BC application: 16 July 2003

BC granted: 12 October 2003

Kitchen remodelling Commenced: mid-June 2004 (first invoice from contractor dated 26 June) - completed December 2004.

Bathroom refit commenced: July 2005 (I recall we delayed this so that this would take place over the early summer - completed early December 2005

Master Bedroom (second storey) refit commenced: June 2006 (included the installation of a ranch-slider that required additional strengthening. Additionally the next stage was a deck which the builder decided that he wanted to build first so that access to the outside of the second storey walls around where the ranch slider was to be installed would be easier. This required the erection of scaffolding. We had to wait over 10 weeks just to get the scaffolding done because we had not planned on needing it).

The work was stopped for a month over the Christmas period. The Master Bedroom refit and the building of the deck was completed mid-March 2007.

Electrical Code of Compliance Cert issued: April 2007
Final building inspection carried out June 2007
Final building Code of Compliance Certificate issued: August 2007

So it took us four years & one month from the granting of a building consent to the completion of the work. I am told that is very quick for the amount of work we had done. It would have been quicker if we have known about the scaffolding.

Minoosh 29th September 2018 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12446391)
I wonder how many men think about escape routes from someone breaking in?

Probably none, but I think some are being educated by their wives and daughters about the fear of being overpowered and raped. Then there's also the chance of getting killed. Would it make a difference to any of those men, I don't know. But a few of them must have emotional reactions to the allegations. I don't know if this could or would change anyone's vote, but it certainly might give them pause.

Foolmewunz 29th September 2018 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12446402)
Probably none, but I think some are being educated by their wives and daughters about the fear of being overpowered and raped. Then there's also the chance of getting killed. Would it make a difference to any of those men, I don't know. But a few of them must have emotional reactions to the allegations. I don't know if this could or would change anyone's vote, but it certainly might give them pause.

Naaaah! These are manly men without a fear in the world. (Well, other than being caught out being scummy party hacks lying to the Senate on national TV. Then, apparently, it's the ballsiest thing in the world to sniffle and whimper. Manly men, I say!)

Minoosh 29th September 2018 12:55 AM

There's another question I'd like asked, but it almost certainly water under the bridge now: Why his position changed on whether he was a member of the Federalist Society in 2002 (from memory). The administration has given no reason for why that much info must be withheld. Supposedly it cripples the ability to nominate judges? Why, because it is so candid? Probably. They probably show nominees are picked who serve the party's agenda and how to discourage people they don't want. I say, get it out in the open. I would buy an argument for national security, but if they simply don't wish to tip their partisanship hand, that's BS. I have not been able to find any hypothetical examples of what these documents could be hiding. A lot of swearing? Smearing?

Can anyone think of an example?

But obviously, the FBI will stick to fairly narrower parameters that should probably speak to Kavanaugh's truthfulness and to the interviewing of a few more witnesses who know him in HS and college.

Bob001 29th September 2018 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12446342)
......
ETA: Yep. Georgetown Prep. Kavanaugh graduated in 83, Gorsuch in 85.

More about Georgetown Prep.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ilege-on-trial

MikeG 29th September 2018 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12446400)
Sorry this took so long to reply to this, it took me a while to dig out the records.

In the mid 2000s we did some extensive remodelling of our house.
In Nelson, when the council grants a building consent, you have 12 months to begin the works.

We tried to have each stage completed by Christmas of each year.

BC application: 16 July 2003

BC granted: 12 October 2003

Kitchen remodelling Commenced: mid-June 2004 (first invoice from contractor dated 26 June) - completed December 2004.

Bathroom refit commenced: July 2005 (I recall we delayed this so that this would take place over the early summer - completed early December 2005

Master Bedroom (second storey) refit commenced: June 2006 (included the installation of a ranch-slider that required additional strengthening. Additionally the next stage was a deck which the builder decided that he wanted to build first so that access to the outside of the second storey walls around where the ranch slider was to be installed would be easier. This required the erection of scaffolding. We had to wait over 10 weeks just to get the scaffolding done because we had not planned on needing it).

The work was stopped for a month over the Christmas period. The Master Bedroom refit and the building of the deck was completed mid-March 2007.

Electrical Code of Compliance Cert issued: April 2007
Final building inspection carried out June 2007
Final building Code of Compliance Certificate issued: August 2007

So it took us four years & one month from the granting of a building consent to the completion of the work. I am told that is very quick for the amount of work we had done. It would have been quicker if we have known about the scaffolding.

For anyone who wants to know how long a domestic building project can take.....

Squeegee Beckenheim 29th September 2018 02:03 AM

WRT whether or not Judge et al's statements are equivalent to as if they had been made under oath:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1045832561300103170

Quote:

is it just me or is "under penalty of felony" a phrase someone just made up?
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1045836322823319553

Quote:

In fact -- if you sign something "under penalty of felony," and lie, I'm not confident that's perjury. I kind of suspect it's not.

Squeegee Beckenheim 29th September 2018 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige
Seems like the FBI would need a week just to determine which allegations were credible enough to warrant an investigation.

And would it really matter? Say the White House complies, and the FBI spends the next week investigating. At the end of the week, they've uncovered nothing conclusive. What happens then?

Do the Never-Kavanaughs pack up their bags and go home? Does anyone actually say, "all I wanted was for the FBI to investigate. Now they've done that, and I'm satisfied."? Do we all agree that in the absence of any negative result after a whole week of investigation, Kavanaugh should indeed be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

You're absolutely right - setting a time limit on the investigation is stupid, especially one as short as this. Unless, of course, the purpose is not to actually determine the truth of the accusations, but instead to do the bare minimum in order to give the appearance of having "done something" before voting to confirm anyway.

Matthew Best 29th September 2018 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12446398)
Kavanaugh is going to hate this. Quite aside from his possible Jekyll and Hyde personality change while drinking, there are enough other indicators to me that he is not suitable to being a SC justice. But that's partly a visceral reaction; I am extremely repelled by the guy, but "seems creepy" is not evidence.

I have only had to interview someone for a job they were after once, and nothing like this came up. But if one of the interviewees had cried, shouted about "the left" and "Democrats" then told me over and over again how much he liked drinking beer, I don't think he would have got the job.

fagin 29th September 2018 02:44 AM

Creepy is a perfectly reasonable reason for not employing someone.

Henri McPhee 29th September 2018 03:07 AM

The American Supreme Court seems like a political bench to me. They are supposed to be an impartial judge of gross miscarriage of justice cases.

Squeegee Beckenheim 29th September 2018 03:24 AM

It's possible that two protesters who confronted Flake directly with their own stories of assault may have been responsible for changing his mind

Belz... 29th September 2018 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows
Michael Avenatti, the creepy porn lawyer

Denigrating those in the sex industry is fun!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza
Kavanaugh wasn't upset during the Fox interview, which,. according to sources, made him look weak in the eyes of Trump.
So for the testimony, he turned it up to show off to the one person who mattered.
I don't believe his anger was genuine, though his desperation might have been.

It certainly looked exaggerated. Staged, even.

P.J. Denyer 29th September 2018 03:28 AM

For me there was one moment in which I think the 'real' Kavanaugh shone through, at the beginning of Graham's rant there's a truly genuine smile on his face, until he clamps down on it anyway, and it's the smile of a kid who's got his big brother to beat up a peer he doesn't like.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.