Dr Ford won't be his downfall. Multiple provable lies in Kavanaugh's testimony will be his undoing.
Quick Poll: Politics aside, is Christine Blasey Ford lying?
51,761 Views |
455 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by bearister
NYCGOBEARS said:
Dr Ford won't be his downfall. Multiple provable lies in Kavanaugh's testimony will be his undoing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
The use of the word "corroboration" is very misleading to lay people. There is a jury instruction that says a fact may be proven by the testimony of one credible witness. No "corroboration" required. There is another jury instruction that states If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may think it deserves. Thus, since Dr. Ford is a credible witness, her testimony alone is enough to establish the sexual assault. The finder of fact could reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's testimony was untruthful with regard to numerous material facts and thus all his testimony can and should be rejected. Oh, and the fact Kavanaugh is lying in itself corroborates Dr. Ford's testimony.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
And as I noted, it's not just what the FBI turns up that has an effect here. It's the extra time for more polls to come out and show if Kavanaugh remains broadly unpopular with voters, or if he sinks even further underwater. If they'd fast-tracked him through they might have gotten 50 Republicans on board without having considered the consequences.NYCGOBEARS said:
Dr Ford won't be his downfall. Multiple provable lies in Kavanaugh's testimony will be his undoing.
After some time to sober up and survey the political landscape, enough GOP Senators might realize that it would be politically stupid to push through such an unpopular nominee (not to mention deeply damaging to the institution of the Supreme Court itself). It only takes two to reject Kavanaugh.
Please. It's possible to base one's opinions on life experience and good judgement, whether it's about Trump or Kav. You didn't have to be a Democrat to know that before the final vote was in both were lying about consequential things and therefore unworthy of the office.wifeisafurd said:The stupidity of this post is that my comment was made before any testimony and before other acts were alleged, where posters were espousing absolute views based solely on written statements made to the press. This clearly was a reflection of poster bias than anything else.drizzlybears brother said:You should have some idea. Or do you just take everyone at face value?wifeisafurd said:
I have no idea if she is lying, nor do I think anyone here knows.
Well that could not be more misleading and disingenuous. First, this isn't a trial; at best, it is a job interview. No one ever prosecute this when (remembering the beyond a reasonable doubt standard):bearister said:
The use of the word "corroboration" is very misleading to lay people. There is a jury instruction that says a fact may be proven by the testimony of one credible witness. No "corroboration" required. There is another jury instruction that states If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may think it deserves. Thus, since Dr. Ford is a credible witness, her testimony alone is enough to establish the sexual assault. The finder of fact could reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's testimony was untruthful with regard to numerous material facts and thus all his testimony can and should be rejected. Oh, and the fact Kavanaugh is lying in itself corroborates Dr. Ford's testimony.
1) All three named eyewitnesses by Ford submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. They include Ford's friend.
2) There is no way to establish a time line for a jury. Heck, they MAY have it narrowed down to an entire year. She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party. She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house, estimated to be about 7 miles away. And it gets worse, because she used inconsistent dates with different media, the Senate Committee staff, and in her testimony.
3) Concerns about inconsistencies in Ford's description of events. Those include how many people were at the party and whether she could hear a conversation between Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other partygoers following the alleged assault, etc. (Also a timeline issue). She made inconsistent statements to media sources and others about the number of people at the party and various particulars about the parties (never allow you witness to talk toe media in detail). She made inconsistent remarks from her therapy notes. She could not remember if her therapy just a few years ago was taped (which is absurd given all the rules in California, what she has her as PHD in and you as a lawyer would both know). She would be hammered by a defense attorney regarding obviously lying about not be able to fly when she flies all the time. These are small items for the hearing (and at least to me), but in the hands of a defense attorney in a trial should be devastating to a witness' credibility.
4) The lack of any physical evidence, or actually any evidence other than what parts of her brain were telling her (if I'm a prosecutor that psychobabble is not playing well with a jury).
5) The defendant would not have to testify.
All of which gets back to discussing the relevance of your jury instruction. At trial she isn't credible, there is nothing to corroborate her testimony currently, and what (or whose?) false testimony are talking about since noa defense attorney in a case like this ever puts their client on the stand.
Please, at the time of my post, all you had to go on was written statements and you probably had no idea who Kavanaugh was until he was nominated. Your reference to a final vote (which hasn't happened) is a farce and a cover-up for a stupid remark. (biting the head of someone who says Kav is toast and should withdraw AFTER THE HEARING AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS really looks dumb btw - you might considering agreeing with those who agree with you at the present time).B.A. Bearacus said:Please. It's possible to base one's opinions on life experience and good judgement, whether it's about Trump or Kav. You didn't have to be a Democrat to know that before the final vote was in both were lying about consequential things and therefore unworthy of the office.wifeisafurd said:The stupidity of this post is that my comment was made before any testimony and before other acts were alleged, where posters were espousing absolute views based solely on written statements made to the press. This clearly was a reflection of poster bias than anything else.drizzlybears brother said:You should have some idea. Or do you just take everyone at face value?wifeisafurd said:
I have no idea if she is lying, nor do I think anyone here knows.
Hey, no fair actually showing some intelligence in this thread. The FBI investigation dons't have sufficient time to investigate the facts. They can say if they found someone was lying however.NYCGOBEARS said:
Dr Ford won't be his downfall. Multiple provable lies in Kavanaugh's testimony will be his undoing.
WIAF, you and I will simply have to disagree on when one can make strong educated guesses. You sounded like a red-faced, hyperventilating Lindsey Graham here about my opinion that Kav, who was besties with Judge and who made drinking references on his yearbook page, probably was no stranger to getting drunk. "Lowest level!" "Utter bulls!t." You have a flair for overheated rhetoric towards other posters, it seems. This opinion, like the one that Ford's accusation was credible, were reasonable before the hearings, but were just made more credible (for some, absolutely not for others) after the hearings.wifeisafurd said:B.A. Bearacus said:okaydo said:
If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.
Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.
Kennedy's legacy is in the crapper, and the article doesn't even mention his son lending Trump $1bn from Deutsche Bank while his son was an executive and handled the loan. Poor Kennedy, he traded on his "good" name and got swindled. Idiot and traitor. I hope he rots in hell for his bias and stupidity.
The man who gave his Supreme Court seat to Donald Trump is very upset about incivility
The man who gave his Supreme Court seat to Donald Trump is very upset about incivility
Quote:
Justice Kennedy did more than any living American to undermine democracy. Now he's mad about it.
wifeisafurd said:Well that could not be more misleading and disingenuous. First, this isn't a trial; at best, it is a job interview. No one ever prosecute this when (remembering the beyond a reasonable doubt standard):bearister said:
The use of the word "corroboration" is very misleading to lay people. There is a jury instruction that says a fact may be proven by the testimony of one credible witness. No "corroboration" required. There is another jury instruction that states If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may think it deserves. Thus, since Dr. Ford is a credible witness, her testimony alone is enough to establish the sexual assault. The finder of fact could reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's testimony was untruthful with regard to numerous material facts and thus all his testimony can and should be rejected. Oh, and the fact Kavanaugh is lying in itself corroborates Dr. Ford's testimony.
1) All three named eyewitnesses by Ford submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. They include Ford's friend.
2) There is no way to establish a time line for a jury. Heck, they MAY have it narrowed down to an entire year. She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party. She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house, estimated to be about 7 miles away. And it gets worse, because she used inconsistent dates with different media, the Senate Committee staff, and in her testimony.
3) Concerns about inconsistencies in Ford's description of events. Those include how many people were at the party and whether she could hear a conversation between Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other partygoers following the alleged assault, etc. (Also a timeline issue). She made inconsistent statements to media sources and others about the number of people at the party and various particulars about the parties (never allow you witness to talk toe media in detail). She made inconsistent remarks from her therapy notes. She could not remember if her therapy just a few years ago was taped (which is absurd given all the rules in California, what she has her as PHD in and you as a lawyer would both know). She would be hammered by a defense attorney regarding obviously lying about not be able to fly when she flies all the time. These are small items for the hearing (and at least to me), but in the hands of a defense attorney in a trial should be devastating to a witness' credibility.
4) The lack of any physical evidence, or actually any evidence other than what parts of her brain were telling her (if I'm a prosecutor that psychobabble is not playing well with a jury).
5) The defendant would not have to testify.
All of which gets back to discussing the relevance of your jury instruction. At trial she isn't credible, there is nothing to corroborate her testimony currently, and what (or whose?) false testimony are talking about since noa defense attorney in a case like this ever puts their client on the stand.
We are in agreement that the Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings (the "Hearings") are not a trial.
Although in end result the Hearings are a job interview, it is a job interview conducted in a quasi judicial format where the "job applicant" and other witnesses are cross examined under oath under penalty of perjury. The Republicans even went so far as to bring in a county prosecuting attorney to ask questions.
Because of the quasi judicial nature of the proceedings, general principles of the American judicial system have been referenced in the analysis by experts following the proceedings.
After all, it is the Republicans that are screaming "No corroboration! No corroboration!" in connection with Dr. Ford's testimony. Since this is a term most commonly used in weighing evidence in a judicial proceeding, I thought it only reasonable to respond to the claim of "No corroboration!" from a legal perspective . It sure seems that the Republicans are quick to treat the Hearings as a trial when it suits their narrative, and then quickly retreat from that position when it doesn't.
It looks like you and I have a difference of opinion with regard to the respective credibility of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh (witness credibility is in play in these Hearings). I find her believable, blemishes and all, but I do not find him a credible witness.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/
In addition to his testimony lacking credibility, I thought his demeanor was stereotypical in telegraphing dishonesty. He seemed to become unhinged and breakdown on the stand like Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men and Commander Queeg in The Caine Mutiny.
Finally, you left me scratching my head with your attack on my character labeling my post "misleading and disingenuous." Although you and I have a different opinion regarding what is going on in these hearings, it doesn't make me think you are dishonest. If you want to get in a fight with someone in this forum, there are more than a few takers, I'm just not one of them.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Very good development:
Excerpt:
The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau's investigation into President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to, the people said.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he favored a "comprehensive" F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
"The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason," Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. "But they should also be guided, and I'm being guided, by what the senators are looking for."
The revised White House instruction amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions. But the limited time frame could minimize the danger even as it heightens the likelihood that F.B.I. interviews do not resolve the conflicting accounts.
Excerpt:
The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau's investigation into President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to, the people said.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he favored a "comprehensive" F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
"The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason," Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. "But they should also be guided, and I'm being guided, by what the senators are looking for."
The revised White House instruction amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions. But the limited time frame could minimize the danger even as it heightens the likelihood that F.B.I. interviews do not resolve the conflicting accounts.
we can disagree, but comparing me to someone as a means of justifying your argument is the lowest form of argument. For comparison sakes, it was the strategy best employed by Joe McCarthy. Shoe on other foot?B.A. Bearacus said:WIAF, you and I will simply have to disagree on when one can make strong educated guesses. You sounded like a red-faced, hyperventilating Lindsey Graham here about my opinion that Kav, who was besties with Judge and who made drinking references on his yearbook page, probably was no stranger to getting drunk. "Lowest level!" "Utter bulls!t." You have a flair for overheated rhetoric towards other posters, it seems. This opinion, like the one that Ford's accusation was credible, were reasonable before the hearings, but were just made more credible (for some, absolutely not for others) after the hearings.wifeisafurd said:B.A. Bearacus said:okaydo said:
If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.
Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.
And what do you think Trump will conclude is within reason? My guess is very little. Don't look for anyone to be happy with this "investigation", as a week is not sufficient time for the FBI to resolve any conflicting accounts.B.A. Bearacus said:
Very good development:
Excerpt:
The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau's investigation into President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to, the people said.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he favored a "comprehensive" F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.
"The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason," Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. "But they should also be guided, and I'm being guided, by what the senators are looking for."
The revised White House instruction amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions. But the limited time frame could minimize the danger even as it heightens the likelihood that F.B.I. interviews do not resolve the conflicting accounts.
My opinion of Jeff Flake has gone up- not for taking a moral stance, he wouldn't know that from a cactus- but for being a political strategist. The Democrats mantra the whole hearing was we need an FBI investigation. So now they have it and at the end of it they likely have nothing new and so fall back on teenage drinking and not telling the truth about teenage drinking . That's not going to do it. They needed a Colonel Jessup moment and there were a couple of places where it could have happened.
The second he went on his rant about the Clintons should have been the moment that disqualified him. That demonstrated not only a lacked sense of reality, but poor judicial temperment.Anarchistbear said:
My opinion of Jeff Flake has gone up- not for taking a moral stance, he wouldn't know that from a cactus- but for being a political strategist. The Democrats mantra the whole hearing was we need an FBI investigation. So now they have it and at the end of it they likely have nothing new and so fall back on teenage drinking and not telling the truth about teenage drinking . That's not going to do it. They needed a Colonel Jessup moment and there were a couple of places where it could have happened.
"I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life. It's one of my only good traits," he said to laughter in the Rose Garden, responding to a question from CNN's Kaitlan Collins.
"I never had a glass of alcohol. I never had alcohol, for whatever reason,"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
It comes down to what the FBI is allowed to investigate.Anarchistbear said:
My opinion of Jeff Flake has gone up- not for taking a moral stance, he wouldn't know that from a cactus- but for being a political strategist. The Democrats mantra the whole hearing was we need an FBI investigation. So now they have it and at the end of it they likely have nothing new and so fall back on teenage drinking and not telling the truth about teenage drinking . That's not going to do it. They needed a Colonel Jessup moment and there were a couple of places where it could have happened.
My guess is Mark Judge stonewalls things...ends up in hell as a conservative and super devout Catholic. Sure his gang bang buddy is on the SC...but he'll be in eternal hell.
If there's anything, the second allegation, from his Yale classmate, seems to have the most weight and it's being investigated. It seems Kavanaugh knew his weenie waving episode was an issue, so he contacted former classmates to try and squash things down, get others to back his story. Turns out Ms. Ramirez was in the same social circles and there were texts flying around to herd the cats.
While this isn't witness tampering, it's fishy and seems to political hackery. Not a big issue if it were an election but this is a job interview. Influencing a background check in your favor for a job isn't kosher, likely grounds not to be hired.
Otherwise agree the rant against the Democrat senators was a YUUUGE partisan no-no. And it was on national TV. That's simply not supreme court behavior.
I'm not sure I would call the rants I heard from various Senators or Kav anything close to a judicial procedure, not to mention the back and forth name calling, one group walking out, etc. anything remotely close to a court. It was pure politics. The fact remains that absent what the FBI may find in its extremely limited investigation, there is no other evidence that has been presented to support Ford's case other than what she can recall. Layman or otherwise, that is called not having corroborating evidence in any forum. The concept that someone is going to issue an order in this political hearing saying what you said is just flat wrong.bearister said:wifeisafurd said:Well that could not be more misleading and disingenuous. First, this isn't a trial; at best, it is a job interview. No one ever prosecute this when (remembering the beyond a reasonable doubt standard):bearister said:
The use of the word "corroboration" is very misleading to lay people. There is a jury instruction that says a fact may be proven by the testimony of one credible witness. No "corroboration" required. There is another jury instruction that states If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may think it deserves. Thus, since Dr. Ford is a credible witness, her testimony alone is enough to establish the sexual assault. The finder of fact could reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's testimony was untruthful with regard to numerous material facts and thus all his testimony can and should be rejected. Oh, and the fact Kavanaugh is lying in itself corroborates Dr. Ford's testimony.
1) All three named eyewitnesses by Ford submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. They include Ford's friend.
2) There is no way to establish a time line for a jury. Heck, they MAY have it narrowed down to an entire year. She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party. She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house, estimated to be about 7 miles away. And it gets worse, because she used inconsistent dates with different media, the Senate Committee staff, and in her testimony.
3) Concerns about inconsistencies in Ford's description of events. Those include how many people were at the party and whether she could hear a conversation between Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other partygoers following the alleged assault, etc. (Also a timeline issue). She made inconsistent statements to media sources and others about the number of people at the party and various particulars about the parties (never allow you witness to talk toe media in detail). She made inconsistent remarks from her therapy notes. She could not remember if her therapy just a few years ago was taped (which is absurd given all the rules in California, what she has her as PHD in and you as a lawyer would both know). She would be hammered by a defense attorney regarding obviously lying about not be able to fly when she flies all the time. These are small items for the hearing (and at least to me), but in the hands of a defense attorney in a trial should be devastating to a witness' credibility.
4) The lack of any physical evidence, or actually any evidence other than what parts of her brain were telling her (if I'm a prosecutor that psychobabble is not playing well with a jury).
5) The defendant would not have to testify.
All of which gets back to discussing the relevance of your jury instruction. At trial she isn't credible, there is nothing to corroborate her testimony currently, and what (or whose?) false testimony are talking about since noa defense attorney in a case like this ever puts their client on the stand.
We are in agreement that the Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings (the "Hearings") are not a trial.
Although in end result the Hearings are a job interview, it is a job interview conducted in a quasi judicial format where the "job applicant" and other witnesses are cross examined under oath under penalty of perjury. The Republicans even went so far as to bring in a county prosecuting attorney to ask questions.
Because of the quasi judicial nature of the proceedings, general principles of the American judicial system have been referenced in the analysis by experts following the proceedings.
After all, it is the Republicans that are screaming "No corroboration! No corroboration!" in connection with Dr. Ford's testimony. Since this is a term most commonly used in weighing evidence in a judicial proceeding, I thought it only reasonable to respond to the claim of "No corroboration!" from a legal perspective . It sure seems that the Republicans are quick to treat the Hearings as a trial when it suits their narrative, and then quickly retreat from that position when it doesn't.
It looks like you and I have a difference of opinion with regard to the respective credibility of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh (witness credibility is in play in these Hearings). I find her believable, blemishes and all, but I do not find him a credible witness.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/
In addition to his testimony lacking credibility, I thought his demeanor was stereotypical in telegraphing dishonesty. He seemed to become unhinged and breakdown on the stand like Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men and Commander Queeg in The Caine Mutiny.
Finally, you left me scratching my head with your attack on my character labeling my post "misleading and disingenuous." Although you and I have a different opinion regarding what is going on in these hearings, it doesn't make me think you are dishonest. If you want to get in a fight with someone in this forum, there are more than a few takers, I'm just not one of them.
As pointed out by New York, you may with the help of the FBI be able to evaluate Kav's testimony as lying under oath. Maybe. Though as a lawyer, if you go back and look at his testimony, so much of it was couched with protective language like best of recollection, my belief, and other similar phrases (you now the drill). From that perspective, it is going to be hard to say he outright lied on any material issues. Kav may be some things you suggest (or not), but he is a good lawyer.
You call a picture of him holding a glass in a toast drinking? Actually, it is more perverse than that. Trump apparently not only doesn't drink, but he looks down on those that do, and considers them weak according to every biographer of him. He considers it a character flaw in Kav btw.bearister said:
"I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life. It's one of my only good traits," he said to laughter in the Rose Garden, responding to a question from CNN's Kaitlan Collins.
"I never had a glass of alcohol. I never had alcohol, for whatever reason,"
Donald Trump just veered WAY off message on Brett Kavanaugh's drinking @CNNPolitics https://cnn.it/2ItcHzb
Freddy Trump, Jr, by rights should have run the family real estate business; instead he fell into severe alcoholism and died of liver cirrhosis at only age 43 in 1981, right when The Donald started his leadership career at the family business. Trump consistently reported in interviews over the past four decades that his brother is the reason he neither smokes nor drinks, and there many articles of people around him confirming (corroborating? ) this (you can google them). That said there are pictures on the internet of a glass filled with alcohol in front of Trump or him holding up a drink. There are pictures of him drinking beverages at political or social occasions. These beverages are in glasses or tumblers usually reserved for specific alcoholic beverages.
Being in positions of leadership whether in business or politics often requires a person to participate in activities where the majority of people drink alcohol. It is expected of you to share a drink with those whom you do business with. Did he actually drink or was he posing like in the picture you posted? What is interesting is that booze is not served in the oval office (a first), people that know him say he doesn't drink and he won't have in front of him in any situation where he cannot control what is served him. The secret service has said when others are served alcohol, his detail can ensure that he is served a non-alcoholic beverage in the same style as the alcohol. BTW, this is normal practice for world leaders; they don't simply trust what is being served them. Even French PM Macron won't drink wine when served outside his office.
There's plenty of photographs of him conspicuously drinking water or soda at even black tie affairs, in addition the ones where it appears he has an unmarked, possibly alcoholic beverage. Many people who don't drink usually keep a drink in their hand at parties to avoid awkwardness. Not to mention Trump is absurdly aware of the other small social signifiers, as he seems more concerned about branding than anything else (always the red 'power' tie).
To respond to Trump's latest rhetorical question to the press about how messy of a drunk he'd be if he drank (see the linked article above), one late night guys said:.
"Yeah. I think I can imagine a drunk Donald Trump," Corden said, "being inappropriate with women, getting into dumb arguments, firing off angry tweets. He's right, that would be a real mess."
Does it really matter if Trump doesn't drink or drinks very little?
NBC: We can't corroborate any of the claims made by Julie Swetnick, also her claims have shifted https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/01/nbc-cant-corroborate-claims-made-julie-swetnick-also-claims-shifted/bearister said:
The use of the word "corroboration" is very misleading to lay people. There is a jury instruction that says a fact may be proven by the testimony of one credible witness. No "corroboration" required. There is another jury instruction that states If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may think it deserves. Thus, since Dr. Ford is a credible witness, her testimony alone is enough to establish the sexual assault. The finder of fact could reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's testimony was untruthful with regard to numerous material facts and thus all his testimony can and should be rejected. Oh, and the fact Kavanaugh is lying in itself corroborates Dr. Ford's testimony.
You need to tell NBC to stop fact checking and using that misleading word.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Just to show how long it takes for a proper FBI investigation, the Feds today finally indicted with federal conspiracy charges certain white supremacists in connection with the deadly march at Charlottesville.
FBI will not interview Ford or Kav.
Ford demands interview in FBI probe https://politi.co/2IxVrIZ
Pretty hard to assert allegations against Kav for lying if he isn't even interviewed to explain his comments. Going to be repetitive, but this investigation is a sham designed to allow certain Senators shelter to politically be able to vote for Kav.
Ford demands interview in FBI probe https://politi.co/2IxVrIZ
Pretty hard to assert allegations against Kav for lying if he isn't even interviewed to explain his comments. Going to be repetitive, but this investigation is a sham designed to allow certain Senators shelter to politically be able to vote for Kav.
If during a deposition Kavanagh gave non responsive and evasive responses as purported answers to questions (some asked 3 or 4 times), the deposing attorney's remedy would be to get a court order compelling the good judge to answer the questions or to be found in contempt of court. Kavanaugh knew there was no remedy so he just evaded and gave non responsive answers to his heart's content. To guy's on his team he killed it, to independents, Democrats, fair minded Republicans and the rest of the world he just came off as another liar a la Cosby, Harvey, Mushroom D, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes and Les Moonves.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but that should show you how far away these hearings are from anything in the legal system. If you look at his testimony, he also filibustered, and often demanded rephrasing or clarifications of questions, thereby seriously limiting the number of questions Senators could ask in their limited time. It also didn't help that Democratic Senators were asking 5 minute questions (other than Harris) to make themselves look good, rather then simple, clear prosecutorial type questions that couldn't be evaded or challenged. And then limiting everyone to five minutes in round 2? Total sheet-show IMO.bearister said:
If during a deposition Kavanagh gave non responsive and evasive responses as purported answers to questions (some asked 3 or 4 times), the deposing attorney's remedy would be to get a court order compelling the good judge to answer the questions or to be found in contempt of court. Kavanaugh knew there was no remedy so he just evaded and gave non responsive answers to his heart's content. To guy's on his team he killed it, to independents, Democrats, fair minded Republicans and the rest of the world he just came off as another liar a la Cosby, Harvey, Mushroom D, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes and Les Moonves.
Ronald Klain:
"LIE: Trump says that Kavanaugh was an top choice for SCOTUS for "10 years." But Kavanaugh was NOT on the list of 21 SCOTUS candidates Trump put out in 2016; he wasn't added until 2017, after Mueller started, and Trump wanted a judge against Pres subpoenas."
"LIE: Trump says that Kavanaugh was an top choice for SCOTUS for "10 years." But Kavanaugh was NOT on the list of 21 SCOTUS candidates Trump put out in 2016; he wasn't added until 2017, after Mueller started, and Trump wanted a judge against Pres subpoenas."
Nice to see you are bothered by it.wifeisafurd said:I don't disagree with your first sentence, but that should show you how far away these hearings are from anything in the legal system. If you look at his testimony, he also filibustered, and often demanded rephrasing or clarifications of questions, thereby seriously limiting the number of questions Senators could ask in their limited time. It also didn't help that Democratic Senators were asking 5 minute questions (other than Harris) to make themselves look good, rather then simple, clear prosecutorial type questions that couldn't be evaded or challenged. And then limiting everyone to five minutes in round 2? Total sheet-show IMO.bearister said:
If during a deposition Kavanagh gave non responsive and evasive responses as purported answers to questions (some asked 3 or 4 times), the deposing attorney's remedy would be to get a court order compelling the good judge to answer the questions or to be found in contempt of court. Kavanaugh knew there was no remedy so he just evaded and gave non responsive answers to his heart's content. To guy's on his team he killed it, to independents, Democrats, fair minded Republicans and the rest of the world he just came off as another liar a la Cosby, Harvey, Mushroom D, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes and Les Moonves.
5 minute segments is crap.
I really have a hard time understanding how Grassley et al can look themselves in the mirror.
Kavanaugh played basketball before the advent of the shot clock, so he knows how to run a 4-corners stall. But grassley used "five minutes" to just help him out anyways. What a sham. The only thing that wasn't limited in time was his "take as much time as you like" opening assault of anger and tears.
Clown show of justice.
I'll take my chances with Democrats next time, because this current cohort of leadership stinks!
We'll see how the politics shake out in about 4 weeks.bearister said:
If during a deposition Kavanagh gave non responsive and evasive responses as purported answers to questions (some asked 3 or 4 times), the deposing attorney's remedy would be to get a court order compelling the good judge to answer the questions or to be found in contempt of court. Kavanaugh knew there was no remedy so he just evaded and gave non responsive answers to his heart's content. To guy's on his team he killed it, to independents, Democrats, fair minded Republicans and the rest of the world he just came off as another liar a la Cosby, Harvey, Mushroom D, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes and Les Moonves.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Complete Sweep of Washington On Senior Day
by Cal Athletics
Bears Defeat Cardinal To Take Season Series
by Cal Athletics
The Rodcast: Cal Portal
by Rod Benson