SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[DogofWar1]

FYI, if Trump is dumb enough to limit FBI investigation, we're going right back to impeachment plan.

 

Dumb plan by him.  If FBI cleared Brett, kind of kills impeachment strategy.

 

Now he's setting up a Dem House to know exactly where to look.  What rocks to overturn.  And House has subpoena power.

 

Brett will be known to be totally illegitimate in a matter of months.

[Fergasun]

@DogofWar1
Agree with this... this is almost like the Streisand Effect. They need to answer the questions raised from the hearing:
Squi, Judge at Safeway, etc.

To be honest, if Judge did indeed work at Safeway, it is a huge blow to BKs defense. How would she know Judge worked there, they didn't run in the same social circles...

The same with his drinking issue. If he just enjoyed beer but never blacked out or forgot the Georgetown v. Louisville score... and the yearbook references. None of them pass the muster.. did he blame poor yearbook editing?

If he had a drinking issue the night in question is also an issue.... that is why it is critical he never lost control, blacked out, etc...

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

FYI, if Trump is dumb enough to limit FBI investigation, we're going right back to impeachment plan.

 

Dumb plan by him.  If FBI cleared Brett, kind of kills impeachment strategy.

 

Now he's setting up a Dem House to know exactly where to look.  What rocks to overturn.  And House has subpoena power.

 

Brett will be known to be totally illegitimate in a matter of months.

 

Just listened some a former FBI guy on CNN. It was his opinion that the FBI will interview who they need to and that there really aren't any limits. So I guess the question is, can the White House really limit the scope around topics and who the FBI speaks with?

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Just listened some a former FBI guy on CNN. It was his opinion that the FBI will interview who they need to and that there really aren't any limits. So I guess the question is, can the White House really limit the scope around topics and who the FBI speaks with?

I kind of have my doubts that FBI will act as anyone's puppet.  It's one thing to abide by procedure to simply pass on info to WH.  It's another to conduct a sham investigation.  I think they'll go where the evidence leads them.  One thing that the past two years have shown me is that as exasperating as the corrupt and dirty can be in our government, there are a lot of people willing to stand up for good and decency.

[Fergasun]

NBC News is reporting they are not authorized to get Mark Judges employment records from Safeway... and they are not investigating Swetnick. Who knows about the Ramirez claims.

Also the extent of BKs drinking is off limits...

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

The only affirmative action the Rs approve of

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[RedskinsFan44]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I don't care if he lies about drinking a lot in college. 

 

Any more than I care about Bill Clinton lying about cheating on his wife. 

Nate Silver stated this clearly, the drinking is an important part of the allegations. You can assume if he didn't drink to excess his accusers are lying:

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

For some reason I don't think you would have minded at all being " ruled " by this " angry " white guy.

 

 

 

I don't want to be ruled by any any man including the present president.

 

I don't have a man ruling me in my personal life and haven't ever. Never married, only lived with my daughter's father for seven months. So no, I don't want to be ruled by angry men of any ethnicity.

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I don't want to be ruled by any any man including the present president.

 

I don't have a man ruling me in my personal life and haven't ever. Never married, only lived with my daughter's father for seven months. So no, I don't want to be ruled by angry men of any ethnicity.

Well said.

 

Interesting observation. I don't view our leaders as rulers either. They are our leaders, our public servants, our representatives, but not our rulers. And yeah, judges ain't rulers either.

 

The only ruler I have in my life has inches on one side and centimeters on the other

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------

In response to above tweet

For decades, Republicans have made the claim that lying under oath was important enough to impeach a sitting President. They argued-- it wasn't the affair it was the lie under oath!!! If that is the standard they hold, how can perjury not be disqualifying for a #SCOTUS judge?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Burgold

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I'm starting to think "I like beer" might've been the truest thing to come out of Bret's mouth.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Nerm]

I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue, as any comments perceived as supporting Kavanaugh tend to be viewed as an attack on women.  So, please don't interpret my comments as being dismissive of what he is alleged to have done.  I don't have a favorable opinion of the guy at all.  However...

 

From what I can tell, almost no legal analysts think that anything the guy has said amounts to perjury. Perjury isn't simply being dishonest under oath, there is more to it than that.  Issues such as his descriptions of drinking patterns or blackouts may be untruthful, but then you would have to prove he was knowingly lying about these things this week.  Can it be proven that he remembers times that he blacked out drinking 35 years ago?  Even if you have video of him being blackout drunk  in 1986, that does not mean that he committed perjury by denying it this week.  My knowledge on this is limited, but from what I have read on fairly left wing outlets (such as Vox), there is not a case to be made for perjury.

 

Also, I'm not surprised by the limitations of the scope of the FBI investigation.  I assumed that the investigation would focus on the specific events of assaulting Dr. Ford and exposing himself.  I think outcome of the investigation really comes down to finding corroborating witnesses to the event described by Dr. Ford, or some form of documentation from the mid 80's referencing the event.  The best bet would be finding out who drove her home, and that person being able to remember that Dr. Ford was showing signs of distress at that time.  I'm not even sure if corroboration of the exposure event would be enough, as it was so long ago, and it is much less serious issue than a sexual assault.

 

Please don't take these comments as any kind of dismissal of the allegations, or support for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Just some thoughts I had about some of the issues being discussed.  

[Hersh]

32 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

The first comment on this tweet has it right. “The Senators aren’t lying to themselves, they just don’t give a ****.”

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Nerm said:

From what I can tell, almost no legal analysts think that anything the guy has said amounts to perjury. Perjury isn't simply being dishonest under oath, there is more to it than that.  Issues such as his descriptions of drinking patterns or blackouts may be untruthful, but then you would have to prove he was knowingly lying about these things this week. 

Here's a simple one that I think counts.

 

Kavanaugh said that he was legally drinking at these parties. Given his birth date and the state he was in that was a lie. He was an underage drinker. I think we can pretty much guarantee that Kavanaugh knew then and certainly knows now that it was not legal for a 17 year old to purchase or consume alcohol in the mid 1980's. He said he was drinking legally. 

 

I think the sex games and drug terms he used that he knowingly mischaracterized is another one.

 

Kavanaugh said at least twenty things that were demonstrable lies. Things which he knew were untrue.

 

All of these are lies under oath at about the same level as Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for.

[Larry]

50 minutes ago, Burgold said:

For decades, Republicans have made the claim that lying under oath was important enough to impeach a sitting President. They argued-- it wasn't the affair it was the lie under oath!!! If that is the standard they hold, how can perjury not be disqualifying for a #SCOTUS judge?

 

"The Democrats did it". 

[Burgold]

Just now, Larry said:

 

"The Democrats did it". 

Yup. Sigh.

 

We really need to come up with a word stronger than hypocrites.

[Nerm]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Here's a simple one that I think counts.

 

Kavanaugh said that he was legally drinking at these parties. Given his birth date and the state he was in that was a lie. He was an underage drinker. I think we can pretty much guarantee that Kavanaugh knew then and certainly knows now that it was not legal for a 17 year old to purchase or consume alcohol in the mid 1980's. He said he was drinking legally. 

 

I think the sex games and drug terms he used that he knowingly mischaracterized is another one.

 

Kavanaugh said at least twenty things that were demonstrable lies. Things which he knew were untrue.

 

All of these are lies under oath at about the same level as Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for.

 

The standard for perjury is not just if he lied.  The lie has to be about a material fact that is important to the allegation.  The legal drinking age thing is not relevant to the issue of whether he assaulted Dr. Ford. Same thing as his response to the question of whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony.  Perjury is not simply lying under oath, there are more elements to it, from what I understand.  I'm not making the case that he was truthful, I'm just saying that he did not commit the crime of perjury this week. At least that is my understanding, and I very well could be wrong.

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

The standard for perjury is not just if he lied.  The lie has to be about a material fact that is important to the allegation.  The legal drinking age thing is not relevant to the issue of whether he assaulted Dr. Ford. Same thing as his response to the question of whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony.  Perjury is not simply lying under oath, there are more elements to it, from what I understand.  I'm not making the case that he was truthful, I'm just saying that he did not commit the crime of perjury this week. At least that is my understanding, and I very well could be wrong.

Of course it is. It speaks to his character. It speaks to his state. etc..

 

Besides, I also think that your definition isn't accurate. I think you are supposed to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." In fact, I could have "sworn" I've heard those words somewhere before. I don't think you get to lie about everything accept for this really narrow band of facts.

 

One of lawyers is welcome to correct me, but what your saying not only doesn't ring true... it doesn't make sense. After all, who decides what facts are material. They all are. That's why they are being asked about.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Burgold

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

After all, who decides what facts are material. They all are. That's why they are being asked about.

 

 

The Senators voting on him.

[visionary]

I haven't seen any legal experts say he did not commit perjury.

 

 

 

 

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

Quote

Legal Experts and Yale Friends Believe Kavanaugh Committed Perjury
 

Multiple legal experts, pundits and former peers of Brett Kavanaugh believe the embattled Supreme Court nominee lied under oath during his re-hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday while denying various accusations and questions raised during the hours-long grilling session.

[LadySkinsFan]

Here's another thought about the Gable case: the Court can change the schedules of any case anytime.

 

So quoting schedules now is meaningless.

[drowland]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@DogofWar1
Agree with this... this is almost like the Streisand Effect. They need to answer the questions raised from the hearing:
Squi, Judge at Safeway, etc.

To be honest, if Judge did indeed work at Safeway, it is a huge blow to BKs defense. How would she know Judge worked there, they didn't run in the same social circles...

The same with his drinking issue. If he just enjoyed beer but never blacked out or forgot the Georgetown v. Louisville score... and the yearbook references. None of them pass the muster.. did he blame poor yearbook editing?

If he had a drinking issue the night in question is also an issue.... that is why it is critical he never lost control, blacked out, etc...
 

 

Actually from what I remember he did blame the year book editor.  He said they wanted to go for an Animal House vibe and they may have edited his quotes.  I’m sure news outlets are trying to hunt down Georgetown Preps yearbook staff from 1982.  

[Nerm]

I have not read the transcripts, but this is a quote I found:

 

 “My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink.”

 

So, I see this quote as misleading.  But if you look at the words, he never even said that he was drinking legally.  I think he was able to be deceitful with this comment without committing perjury. Again, not the kind of behavior that I would want from a judge, but I don't think it meets the legal definition of perjury.