How to frame Kavanaugh: no alibi, no scrutiny, no doubt

[777]

Well, I'm still not certain that she's deliberately lying and, frankly, she sounds like a bit of a kook to me, but then she's a psychologist.

Her team and Grassley have been going back and forth on the meeting but he's tiring of all of this finally:

Grassley panel scraps Kavanaugh hearing, warns committee will vote without deal

she hates to fly, Kav has to testify first to NOTHING, he can't be in the room at the time, no lawyers allowed in the Senate, the FBI has to investigate first, and so on - stall stall stall.

They have until ten tonight, else Grassley will just hold the vote Monday IMO - rumor is they have something simply devastating on Chrissy here, and it's not that yearbook.

 

[Matt Black]

I think the elephant (Republican or otherwise) in the room is being missed here: no one is on trial here. No charges have been laid even. A candidate is being interviewed for a job and something has been brought up which suggests that he might be if not unsuitable then not the most qualified for the job. I say 'might' as the evidential rules for a court of law don't apply here: no need for 'beyond reasonable doubt ' or even the 'balance of probabilities' - this is a job interview. Usually what happens in such circumstances is that one goes on to view the credentials of and interview other candidates for the job.

 

[Matt Black]

If the Rs cave on this one, they're toast - BURNED toast.
If they stick to their guns and go forward, whether or not Ford shows up Monday, then I predict the dim party will cease to be come November!! May just be wishful thinking, but hey - what's to lose???

High risk: could also go the other way and you could get women is particular voting blue in large numbers

 

[HankD]

I think the elephant (Republican or otherwise) in the room is being missed here: no one is on trial here. No charges have been laid even. A candidate is being interviewed for a job and something has been brought up which suggests that he might be if not unsuitable then not the most qualified for the job. I say 'might' as the evidential rules for a court of law don't apply here: no need for 'beyond reasonable doubt ' or even the 'balance of probabilities' - this is a job interview. Usually what happens in such circumstances is that one goes on to view the credentials of and interview other candidates for the job.

Then perhaps the vote should be taken on the hearsay evidence?

 

[Matt Black]

Not necessarily, just that the standard of evidence need not be as high. Up to those voting/ interviewing - each will have to form his or her own impression of the candidate

 

[HankD]

I wouldn't be surprised if "hard evidence" (if possible) shows up on either side before the final curtain comes down.

 

[Calminian]

...No charges have been laid even....

Who made claim actual charges were being made. I'd like to know also.

But keep in mind, the accuser is going to testify under oath.

 

[InTheLight]

Dr. Ford talking about his wife in WaPo:

“She was like, ‘I can’t deal with this. If he becomes the nominee, then I’m moving to another country..."

Well, he is the nominee, so pack your bags.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Adonia]

Dr. Ford talking about his wife in WaPo:

“She was like, ‘I can’t deal with this. If he becomes the nominee, then I’m moving to another country..."

Well, he is the nominee, so pack your bags.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Like all good liberals they constantly lie and this is no exception. Many "celebrities" said that they would move if Mr. Trump was elected and guess what they are all still here.

 

[HankD]

Like all good liberals they constantly lie and this is no exception. Many "celebrities" said that they would move if Mr. Trump was elected and guess what they are all still here.

Raking in the bucks making super violent gun blazing blood gushing movies e.g. John Wick/John Wick 2.

Ya, I saw them both.

 

[777]

Well, DiFi had him right in her sights two weeks ago, why didn't she ask him about this then in the "interview"? We may never know the answer to that.

High risk: could also go the other way and you could get women is particular voting blue in large numbers

Yes, but if the Senate turns D, they will NEVER vote to confirm anybody they may think has a possibility to overturn RvW, and that's what this is all about. Bet Kav makes it onto the court, and now he may go out of his way to do just that.

 

[Adonia]

Well, DiFi had him right in her sights two weeks ago, why didn't she ask him about this then in the "interview"? We may never know the answer to that.

I will tell you the answer. It was to keep the news to the end so it would then become a bombshell of a revelation. It's called politics and nobody knows how to play the game like Democrats.

When Harry Reid brought out the "revelation" about Mitt Romney and taxes during that election, it was a complete lie and he himself said to a reporter when asked about it: "It worked, didn't it?"

 

[just-want-peace]

I will tell you the answer. It was to keep the news to the end so it would then become a bombshell of a revelation. It's called politics and nobody knows how to play the game like Democrats.

When Harry Reid brought out the "revelation" about Mitt Romney and taxes during that election, it was a complete lie and he himself said to a reporter when asked about it: "It worked, didn't it?"

This clip should be played at least every hour, 24/7, from 2 weeks prior to election to closing! It just might filter through a few dense heads!!
Also "Remember Thomas, Bork, & now Kav."