Those calling for polygraphs. You do realize that polygraphs are inadmissible in court for a reason. A polygraph is not a "lie detector" rather it is more a moral compass, psychopathy detector. Those with a very strong moral compass can "falsely fail" polygraphs while those high on the psychopathy scale can "falsely pass" polygraphs.
Brett Kavanaugh and His Accuser Say They’re Willing to Testify
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Epic? All he did was insure himself a few more rides on Air Force One and few more rounds of golf with the PGOTUS.
Did the reopened FBI check on the Anita Hill allegations change a single senate vote?
He said that with the full knowledge that Grassley would never allow it. Can anyone seriously (and I mean that rhetorically because everyone one of the Trumpanistas will disagree) seriously suggest that an attempt to get at the truth can be had without hearing the evidence of Judge.
Epic hypocrisy.
He must have been looking at himself in the mirror and railing against what he has become.
Kavanaugh morphed into Donald Trump right before our eyes.
The moral and ethical decay that lay inside and underpins this indignant, railing white-privilege elitist came a-bubbling to the surface during his testimony.
Neither the judicial temperament and objectivity nor the moral compass he possesses to be a sitting judge anywhere.
Trump is backing Kavanaugh now precisely because Trump identifies with him as someone who assaults women and his only defence is to loudly and angrily deny it.
The question now is whether the GOP are so desperate for power that they will institutionalize an accused rapist as their new barometer for morality.
Trump had been critical of his weak performance in that Fox interview and Trump appeared to be wavering. His performance was intended to shore up his support form the PGOTUS and in that respect it was very successful. Witness Graham who has become Trumps surrogate in the Senate.
How damn stupid ^.
If you were falsely accused of something that happened when you were 17 years-old, allegations which are not supported by those the accusers name as witnesses. You had been hung out to dry, YOU wouldn't be angry and upset?
If.
But this is now 4 women accusing Kavanaugh of being a mean drunk who raped girls.
Kavanaugh showed he has the temper he's accused of having during the interview.
This is the sort of thing that happens now he is labled "an accused rapist," even though no one has accused him of rape. Further all of the witnesses mentioned by the accusers deny that anything happened! Then we have the conflation: one of his suitemates his Freshman year at Yale didn't get along with the other two suitemates he says Judge Kavanaugh was a mean drunk, this is one person not scores of people. None of you ever had a suite or roommate that you were like oil and water?
Your response in based upon you assumption that he was falsely accused. I have no idea what happened but the best anyone can say is that he may have done what he is accused of. The Senate committee has done everything in its power to insure that the truth is not found. Probably because they are afraid of what a fulsome investigation would reveal. The senate was content to have a vacancy on the Court during the Garland episode for 18 months but now there is an urgency that cant wait. The entire hearing was a charade.
Do tell how that is so? Because I called Clarence an Uncle Tom? Why do you think I made that observation? You think it's based on 'hate'? If so, hate based on what? Let's hear it.
Further, no one can beat you and your friends when it comes to hate. I mean, you're not known as KKKDouglas for nothing.
Hahaha.
You're pulling a fuckin 'Kavanaugh' on me.
'Kavanaughing' is the new synonym for hypocritical, righteous indignation.
All you're saying is that anyone might lose his temper in such an instance. But a judge isn't just anyone, and a Supreme Court Justice isn't just any judge.
What do you think a Justice Kavanaugh would say to anyone in his Court whose response to a witness account was only a brief intemperate denial without substantiation, mostly an angry partisan harangue, and an attack on the other side's politics?
I very much doubt it would be approving.
The simple explaination is they knew it was a nothing burger so they didn’t use it because if there was time to dig into it it would unravel. When the end-of-days Roe v Wade strategy didn’t work this was their Hail Mary to stall for time.
They may have rallied a fractured GOP and energized its base, talk about unintended consequences.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EWEricks...es/2018/09/28/wapo-bush-barricades-kavanaugh/
Except that he largely evaded a number of questions asked (i.e. Would he want Mark Judge to testify? Would he welcome an FBI investigation?), failed to provide direct answers, and resorted to affirming his innocence ("I am innocent") over and over.
He did much the same in his initial confirmation hearings (re: evading direct questions) and has been shown to have lied to Congress previously.
Furthermore, a man of 'confidence' doesn't bark and sneer his way through questioning: "What do you drink?" he sarcastically asked one Senator; "You never played quarters?" he asked another - not to mention his exchanges with Feinstein and Klobuchar, among others.
Confidence? Please.
Interesting, because my point, over and over again, is that judges are precisely "just anyone's", subject only to the distinction that they are educated in the laws, and more importantly, in the particular discipline of analysis required by the law. Knowledge of the law doesn't imbue anyone with analytical judgement, which is the real characteristic required to instill confidence in the legal system.
A person's emotional reaction to having their life of accomplishment (against incredible odds) smeared by what they are adamant is a completely false allegation, in my view, casts no disparagement on what I consider to be the essential characteristics of a judge. I think that most people would lack an appreciation for the dedication, hard work and determination it took for Kavanaugh to achieve the legal career he has had. I think most people would lack an appreciation for the close scrutiny that his behaviour has been under for his entire professional life. He has more than proved just how respectfully he treats women both as a judge on the bench and in his professional and personal life generally. I find his response to the sleazy sham that this hearing has turned into to be entirely understandable. Obviously, politicians are not holding themselves anything close to the standards they purport to hold judges to.
And if you think that judges are not prone to outburst of emotion, you've not spent much time in courts or even paid much attention to recent events. What do think a cheeky reference to "crickets" in an important ruling is? Of course, Belobaba could be excused for the emotion, had he only analyzed the legal issue correctly!
And if a couple of Republicans went the other way we might actually stop holding our breath about whether this vital matter of good, impartial judgment by high-principled leaders had deteriorated into just another political mud-match between hacks.
Nice to see some still have hope.
