Final Senate judiciary comm report came out Sat.

[Chomsky]

Do you have evidence that any of it was true? There never has been any evidence. We were just supposed to believe Ford's testimony. That's it.

My problem is with the lack of a thorough investigation.

 

[Cardinal]

An investigation that will be seen as nothing more then political "payback" that will do nothing but expose the Democrats to being ridiculed and possibly cost them political capital they might need for a rainy day (or election).

The investigation isn't for you.

 

[Grokmaster]

In the Senate's final Judiciary Comm report, Kavanaugh is TOTALLY vindicated. They could find no truth in any of the charges made against him.

Now the question is-------------will he get any apologies from the Senate democrats?

And...CRICKETS...of course....

 

[TurtleDude]

Buying him a half rack would just feed his alcoholism, so yeah, not likely.

"Vindicated", lol, kinda like Swampy "vindicated" MBS (Saudi Prince). Funny how that happens when you decide the content of the report before the investigation, and avoid asking the actual witnesses.

you do know there is absolutely no evidence that he has any issues with alcoholism all the years he has been on the bench. If lying about the man is the best you can do, it shows how feeble the anti Kavanaugh hysterics' arguments are.

 

[TurtleDude]

My problem is with the lack of a thorough investigation.

my problem is the lack of honesty by the democrats-such as feinstein and the fixation on issues that were absolutely not material concerning Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench. I cannot wait to see what happens if Trump is able to replace one of the Clinton appointments with say Amy Barrett

 

[TurtleDude]

When you start with an abridged and castrated investigation, of course you don't find much. This is no different than the Republican House Intelligence Committee Investigation, filled with Republican shills. And what did they find? This is the same crap.

were the six prior investigations-that all were subsequent to the Two Door Ford incident and the other claims by people like Swetnick, deficient as well?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have always resisted anything that looks like political retaliation, but I am ready to agree that we need to start exposing and prosecuting these politically motivated false accusations to strongly and emphatically discourage them.

Nobody should be able to be immune to consequences when he/she falsely accuses ANYBODY in the public or private sector and ruins or attempt to ruin that person by virtue of that accusation.

Swetnick, Avenatti and perhaps Ford are all likely candidates for felony perjury charges as well as obstructing the senate. Avenatti should lose his law license over this and Swetnick should get prison time

 

[TurtleDude]

How could you possibly know that, without a proper investigation? Do you believe you are prescient?

should the women who admitted they lied be raked through the coals? we have proof of perjury-and that is on those fraudulent witnesses. they tried to illegally and improperly derail an appointment.

 

[markjs]

you do know there is absolutely no evidence that he has any issues with alcoholism all the years he has been on the bench. If lying about the man is the best you can do, it shows how feeble the anti Kavanaugh hysterics' arguments are.

No I don't and neither do you, neither does the FBI since the results were pre planned, the investigation was a perfect sucess, from the perspective of not wanting to find anything. Just because someone doesn't have any legal issues over their alcohol problems is irrelevant to whether the man has an alcohol "problem".

It doesn't matter anyway, the trick worked, my beef with the whole deal was his perjry about the "drinking games" and other nonsense, but OK, sure, I know perjury about an affair in an investgation that netted nothing else relating to the matter being investigated, and cost boatloads of money to obtain, is a BIG deal, but for a SCOTUS justice, it's fine as long as you have a conservative judicial activast and pro corporatocracy guy, it's all good right? Dark money GFOOD! The GOP should make it a motto! The Dems get their dark money too, of course, and that's the bigegst problem....

 

[Xelor]

Final Senate judiciary comm report came out Sat.

One'd have thought there'd have been a lot of hoopla about it were it so glowing....Instead it came out amidst a host of other news and effectively got lost. Indeed, the OP doesn't even contain a link to it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Completely relevant. Or do you want revenge, not justice? I think you want revenge.

I want the lying women and their scummy attorney(s) made examples of so as to prevent this nonsense in the near future. As to revenge-wtf do you think all the hysterical nonsense was from those women who howled that anyone who supported Kavanaugh was "rejecting their claims of rape or abuse by other men" etc. Kavanaugh became a totem for thousands of women-who suffered (objectively or subjectively) abuse from other men and didn't get the justice they demanded. We saw social media and the MSM filled with women who screamed that they believed Ford and anyone who didn't was in favor of RAPE etc. We had one poster on this board claimed Senator Collins was a RAPE ENABLER due to her vote

vengeance? Kavanaugh was the target of thousands of women who wanted vengeance from everything from true rape to being dumped.

 

[Cordelier]

I'd like to see the House appoint it's own Special Counsel on the matter when the new Congress convenes. I don't think there's much that can be done about the Ford allegations one way or the other after all of this time.... However, I figure if - and I'm saying "if" here - Kavanaugh lied about Ford, then odds are pretty good he lied about other things as well. So why not let a House-appointed Special Counsel go through the relevant Bush Administration White House Records and determine one way or the other if Kavanaugh perjured himself during either his Court of Appeals or Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

 

[TurtleDude]

Some claimed they "didn't remember", mostly through the media, which:

1] Is not the same as saying "it did not happen"

2] Is not the same as being subpoenaed and testifying under oath with threat of perjury

why should the FBI follow up when

1) Ford couldn't remember where and when it happened

2)NOT A SINGLE PERSON testified they were at a gathering that involved Kavanaugh and Ford save Ford

3) the one date on his calendar involved a home over 11 miles from the Club Ford alluded she had been at prior to the gathering and yet no one remembers driving her there etc

in other words, her story was so unsupported and so full of holes, there was nothing for the FBI to further investigate/

 

[TurtleDude]

I'd like to see the House appoint it's own Special Counsel on the matter when the new Congress convenes. I don't think there's much that can be done about the Ford allegations one way or the other after all of this time.... However, I figure if - and I'm saying "if" here - Kavanaugh lied about Ford, then odds are pretty good he lied about other things as well. So why not let a House-appointed Special Counsel go through the relevant Bush Administration White House Records and determine one way or the other if Kavanaugh perjured himself during either his Court of Appeals or Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

in other words, you are mad he was seated and want a fishing expedition.

given his 12 years on the bench without a single blemish, I say its time for you all to move on

 

[Cordelier]

in other words, you are mad he was seated and want a fishing expedition.

given his 12 years on the bench without a single blemish, I say its time for you all to move on

I don't see it that way, Turtle.... There have been significant questions about Kavanaugh's veracity going back to his Court of Appeals hearings in 2006. Questions that withholding records from much of his White House service from the Senate Judiciary Committee did nothing allay. I just want an independent, trusted source to go and in examine the files and determine once and for all if there is anything to the charges. My personal pick would be someone along the lines of Patrick Fitzgerald - he investigated the Valerie Plame affair that led to the conviction of Scooter Libbey. He knows his way around the Bush Administration records. He knows the players. He knows what to look for, and where to look.

If it turns out there's nothing there, I can accept that. I'm actually hoping for that now that he's been confirmed.

But if it turns out that he lied to get confirmed.... then he doesn't deserve to sit on the Court and should be impeached.

Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Chomsky]

were the six prior investigations-that all were subsequent to the Two Door Ford incident and the other claims by people like Swetnick, deficient as well?

my problem is the lack of honesty by the democrats-such as feinstein and the fixation on issues that were absolutely not material concerning Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench. I cannot wait to see what happens if Trump is able to replace one of the Clinton appointments with say Amy Barrett

should the women who admitted they lied be raked through the coals? we have proof of perjury-and that is on those fraudulent witnesses. they tried to illegally and improperly derail an appointment.

why should the FBI follow up when

1) Ford couldn't remember where and when it happened

2)NOT A SINGLE PERSON testified they were at a gathering that involved Kavanaugh and Ford save Ford

3) the one date on his calendar involved a home over 11 miles from the Club Ford alluded she had been at prior to the gathering and yet no one remembers driving her there etc

in other words, her story was so unsupported and so full of holes, there was nothing for the FBI to further investigate/

Jesus TD, what's the deal here? This has been debated here thoroughly & ad nauseum, contemporaneously with the confirmation process, including between you & I, coming to the conclusion that you and I simply disagree.

I'm not going to categorically argue these points, but will very briefly bullet-point my problems here with Kavanaugh:

1] He was evasive and obfuscating in his testimony before the Senate
2] He displayed behaviour not befitting a jurist
3] He was never properly & thoroughly investigated & vetted to my satisfaction
4] He demonstrated political partisanship

 

[TurtleDude]

Jesus TD, what's the deal here? This has been debated here thoroughly & ad nauseum, contemporaneously with the confirmation process, including between you & I, coming to the conclusion that you and I simply disagree.

I'm not going to categorically argue these points, but will very briefly bullet-point my problems here with Kavanaugh:

1] He was evasive and obfuscating in his testimony before the Senate
2] He displayed behaviour not befitting a jurist
3] He was never properly & thoroughly investigated & vetted to my satisfaction
4] He demonstrated political partisanship

he was angry at being smeared by liars.

I suggest that if he showed no emotion, the liberal left would whine he wasn't normal


bottom line-the Man has been on the bench more than 12 years now and there isn't even the slightest blemish on his record. The dems were playing their silly "gotcha" game because some of them have hard ons over what happened to Bill Clinton

 

[Chomsky]

he was angry at being smeared by liars.

I suggest that if he showed no emotion, the liberal left would whine he wasn't normal


bottom line-the Man has been on the bench more than 12 years now and there isn't even the slightest blemish on his record. The dems were playing their silly "gotcha" game because some of them have hard ons over what happened to Bill Clinton

Well if he gets irrationally emotional on the bench and starts spouting HRC Right Wing conspiracy theories, like he did at the hearings, I'd call that unfit.

I do not see that as appropriate for SCOTUS, or any other court for the matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well if he gets irrationally emotional on the bench and starts spouting HRC Right Wing conspiracy theories, like he did at the hearings, I'd call that unfit.

I do not see that as appropriate for SCOTUS, or any other court for the matter.

and that is based on your many appearances before federal appellate judges? Given the level of lies and slander and dishonesty thrown his way, I find his reaction to be expected. I go by what he has done on the bench and that record is excellent.

 

[Chomsky]

and that is based on your many appearances before federal appellate judges? Given the level of lies and slander and dishonesty thrown his way, I find his reaction to be expected. I go by what he has done on the bench and that record is excellent.

No. You have me over the barrel here, in terms of experience.

But I can say as a lay citizen that these are not the qualities I desire in my jurists, irrespective of their legal skills, and if I had the vote to give - I would not give it to Kavanaugh.

 

[TurtleDude]

No. You have me over the barrel here, in terms of experience.

But I can say as a lay citizen that these are not the qualities I desire in my jurists, irrespective of their legal skills, and if I had the vote to give - I would not give it to Kavanaugh.

I would though. I find the way the dems treated him to be disgusting. The dems created an irrelevant argument and whined when he reacted the way they were hoping for. that was after they failed to shake him or demonstrate any incompetence in the normal hearing.

I won't question your reasons since you have pretty much proven to me to be a straight shooter but I have a huge amount of cynicism for lots of posters and politicians who pretended it was his reaction to the smear job that caused them to oppose his nomination when they were against him the minute they heard Trump nominated him

 

[AlbqOwl]

Swetnick, Avenatti and perhaps Ford are all likely candidates for felony perjury charges as well as obstructing the senate. Avenatti should lose his law license over this and Swetnick should get prison time

Even those people deserve their day in court though and we should not presume to try and convict them on line. Most of us have been defending Judge Kavanaugh on the principle of due process, and we cannot be intellectually honest and argue due process for him while bypassing that for everybody else. So far the system has been working to properly defend him and he is definitely one of the lucky ones. Others caught up in the snare of manufactured and engineered trumped up charges have not been so fortunate. It seems we are far more likely to prosecute the essentially innocent than we are in prosecuting those more obviously guilty these days.

 

[Chomsky]

I would though. I find the way the dems treated him to be disgusting. The dems created an irrelevant argument and whined when he reacted the way they were hoping for. that was after they failed to shake him or demonstrate any incompetence in the normal hearing.

I won't question your reasons since you have pretty much proven to me to be a straight shooter but I have a huge amount of cynicism for lots of posters and politicians who pretended it was his reaction to the smear job that caused them to oppose his nomination when they were against him the minute they heard Trump nominated him

To be honest, here's what I believe I saw:

Up to the Dr. Ford hearing, I saw Kavanaugh being of reasonable demeanor, though a bit too evasive and obfuscating in his testimony. However even though he was a bit excessive, that seems to be part & parcel with SCOTUS confirmation hearings these days.

As badly handled as Dr. Ford was by the Dems up to that point, I felt there was enough reasonable material & circumstance to justify her testimony. At the hearing I felt she was credible enough, that an investigation was indeed warranted despite her lack of full specifics. Her description of the party and participants, and the subsequent self-admitted Kavanaugh notes showing at least one party of his exactly like she described, with the same exact participants, added greatly to her credibility.

Everything that followed after that was a sad hot embarrassing mess by both parties, the nominee, and the President. And yes, after that point I agree the Dems indeed over-played their hands. And they may have paid a political price.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well if he gets irrationally emotional on the bench and starts spouting HRC Right Wing conspiracy theories, like he did at the hearings, I'd call that unfit.

I do not see that as appropriate for SCOTUS, or any other court for the matter.

It’s not a theory, there was in fact a conspiracy by Senator Feinstein, Deborah Katz, CFB, and Monica Maclean to torpedo the Kavanaugh allegation. This is beyond dispute, Feinstein held the accusation until after the Spartacus antics didn’t torpedo it, waited until the last minute, helped retain Katz who CBF testified under oath she didn’t even know who was paying, and MacLean intimidated witnesses. This is multiple people working in concert, conspiracy does not mean tin foil hat delusions, it simply means multiple people working to the same end

 

[Chomsky]

It’s not a theory, there was in fact a conspiracy by Senator Feinstein, Deborah Katz, CFB, and Monica Maclean to torpedo the Kavanaugh allegation. This is beyond dispute, Feinstein held the accusation until after the Spartacus antics didn’t torpedo it, waited until the last minute, helped retain Katz who CBF testified under oath she didn’t even know who was paying, and MacLean intimidated witnesses. This is multiple people working in concert, conspiracy does not mean tin foil hat delusions, it simply means multiple people working to the same end

He claimed Hillary Clinton was out to get revenge upon him. Totally Trumpian bull****, is what it was. And it worked! :doh