Seriously? You think his record of public service is suspect? The 6 previous FBI vetts were improperly done?Well good luck with that since his record was not completely open during this confirmation process. Seriously Butler - why do you even try to pass BS like "I prefer to look at his record" when you can't possibly have done that? (not to mention that his testimony and Fox interview are now a part of his "record").
When you said you prefer to look at his record - I assumed you were talking about his record as a jurist. Silly me. So what you're really talking about when you say "record" is his record of conduct. Which his past two days is perhaps the most important and current example of his fitness for the highest court. Correct? So why are you picking and choosing elements of his record to ignore? You're quite full of shit. The bull variety.Seriously? You think his record of public service is suspect? The 6 previous FBI vetts were improperly done?
How about this. In light of this supposed past, should he ALSO lose his place on the bench he now holds?
Add in his record in politics. 26 years. And what his colleagues and subordinates thought if him.When you said you prefer to look at his record - I assumed you were talking about his record as a jurist. Silly me. So what you're really talking about when you say "record" is his record of conduct. Which his past two days is perhaps the most important and current example of his fitness for the highest court. Correct? So why are you picking and choosing elements of his record to ignore? You're quite full of shit. The bull variety.
His record is his resume. His testimony and conduct surrounding this controversy is really the job interview. Hey - you like private sector analogies, right? This one actually is appropriate. I think he did a shit job on the interview phase yesterday and his FOX interview was a bad attempt to warm up the audience and another bad performance. But just because he fails the job interview doesn't mean he's "guilty". Just that he didn't get the job. Life goes on.Add in his record in politics. 26 years. And what his colleagues and subordinates thought if him.
No I don't think uncooborated 36 year old accusations should apply.
Anyway they will now talk to Judge. And the other named people at the party.
All will say it didn't happen. Then what?
Maybe you can find a few cases where the guy spends his whole life in prison after being falsely accused. But those cases don't evoke the same passion, I guess.Not in 2018 when it involves sexual abuse/misconduct allegations.
Society has now adopted the diametrically opposite of Blackstone's Formulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
It is the Duke Lacrosse case all over again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
Did you peep his performance under questioning and his evading questions...answering a question with a question.Interesting opinion. I prefer to look at his record.
In a real hearing (assuming you'd even get one, considering the absence of evidence), Ford would have been properly destroyed by cross examination, the prosecutor wouldn't dare call a witness like Judge, and no one would ever be called by Kavanaugh as a witness.First this is not a criminal proceeding and the presumption has no application. But if you ant to apply some of the trappings of a criminal proceeding then you would have to agree tht there should have been a fulsome hearing with all the witnesses who may have evidence. Like Mark Judge. Unless you are afraid of what a real hearing would reveal.
What I precisely said is that they should have delayed it by a week and to have then conducted a FBI Investigation. But off course in your Trump like opinion you think that they should have gone ahead and elected to nominate him.Comments sense dictates that he be confirmed. Emotion and politics say another week. Fine. They will get their week.
And the vote will happen.
Why do you speculate that the prosecutor wouldn't dare call a witness like Judge?In a real hearing (assuming you'd even get one, considering the absence of evidence), Ford would have been properly destroyed by cross examination, the prosecutor wouldn't dare call a witness like Judge, and no one would ever be called by Kavanaugh as a witness.
Ford would not have been destroyed nearly enough to give Kavanaugh comfort to not testify. He'd have to testify or face a very possible conviction.In a real hearing (assuming you'd even get one, considering the absence of evidence), Ford would have been properly destroyed by cross examination, the prosecutor wouldn't dare call a witness like Judge, and no one would ever be called by Kavanaugh as a witness.
I won't repeat why that isn't so, but instead I'll just note that my true prediction is that the prosecution wouldn't have proceeded at all. With the absence of evidence, wouldn't even have made it past a grand jury.Ford would not have been destroyed nearly enough to give Kavanaugh comfort to not testify. He'd have to testify or face a very possible conviction.
Let me count the ways:Why do you speculate that the prosecutor wouldn't dare call a witness like Judge?
why would his alleged complicity in the crime be a stumbling block? He has not been charged with anything. At worst, he could make a deal. ONE simple question: Who was "Bart O'Kavanaugh" based upon? Kavanaugh already stated in testimony that Judge's book was a "work of fiction". Yet, it is a memoir of his days at St George's Prep and "Bart O'Kavanaugh" was his drinking/partying best friend in the book.Let me count the ways:
1. He's potentially complicit in the crime (calling criminals as your witnesses as a crown is never a great strategy).
2. He's a recovering alcoholic and was possibly an alcoholic and under the influence at the material time.
3. He's already on the record, on penalty of felony indictment, as denying the event.
That should be enough reasons.
None of the witnesses have to talk to the FBI. Firstly. Secondly, there's no starting point for the investigation as there is no time, no location available. And thirdly- let's presume that the FBI catches the accuser I a lie- a good chance due to her sketchy testimony. Will they press the charges and how many Democrats will change their vote? The delay is a stupid distraction designed by the Democrats to use more tools like the creepy porn lawyer. We're actually witnessing Republicans snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.Let me count the ways:
1. He's potentially complicit in the crime (calling criminals as your witnesses as a crown is never a great strategy).
2. He's a recovering alcoholic and was possibly an alcoholic and under the influence at the material time.
3. He's already on the record, on penalty of felony indictment, as denying the event.
That should be enough reasons.
It is really hilarious!!Okay so regardless what side of the fence you're on, this is fucking hilarious!!! :biggrin1:
https://twitter.com/heyitschili/status/1045718359713681408?s=21
So Jeff Flake does not know what he is doing. Really??None of the witnesses have to talk to the FBI. Firstly. Secondly, there's no starting point for the investigation as there is no time, no location available. And thirdly- let's presume that the FBI catches the accuser I a lie- a good chance due to her sketchy testimony. Will they press the charges and how many Democrats will change their vote? The delay is a stupid distraction designed by the Democrats to use more tools like the creepy porn lawyer. We're actually witnessing Republicans snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.