• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

WakeandBake said:
Wrangor you don't think this nominee is damaged enough with this, and the previous lying, to be disqualified? What sets him apart from numerous other conservative pro-life judges who are clean?
Click to expand...

I don't think liberals really care about the nominee, simply that Trump nominated him/her. I think Kavanaugh has served as a Judge for many years without these dishonesty issues you claim affecting his decisions. He is rated very highly by his law peers. I think the political clamor has drowned out any honest reflection from the electorate. If I had to guess, I think Kavanaugh does a fine job, does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and judges from a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think he won't be a massive overturn any more than any other judge Trump would appoint, and in fact I think he is probably on the more moderate scale of judges that Trump could choose. So no, I don't think he is disqualified. I think that pretty much any candidate proposed is going to have a laundry list of 'offenses' from Democrats. Kavanaugh is rated highly, has judged fairly and conservatively and deserves to be confirmed.

I would have said the same thing about Garland, obviously he would judge from the left side of the bench, but he was a fine candidate and deserved to be confirmed. I have said so many times.
 
WakeandBake said:
Wrangor you don't think this nominee is damaged enough with this, and the previous lying, to be disqualified? What sets him apart from numerous other conservative pro-life judges who are clean?
Click to expand...

yeah surely there's some Mike Pence-type of judge who is terrified of being in a room with a woman who's not his wife for fear he would have no choice but to fuck her.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't think liberals really care about the nominee, simply that Trump nominated him/her. I think Kavanaugh has served as a Judge for many years without these dishonesty issues you claim affecting his decisions. I think the clamor has drowned out any honest reflection from the electorate. If I had to guess, I think Kavanaugh does a fine job, does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and judges from a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think he won't be a massive overturn any more than any other judge Trump would appoint, and in fact I think he is probably on the more moderate scale of judges that Trump could choose. So no, I don't think he is disqualified. I think that pretty much any candidate proposed is going to have a laundry list of 'offenses' from Democrats. Kavanaugh is rated highly, has judged fairly and conservatively and deserves to be confirmed.

I would have said the same thing about Garland, obviously he would judge from the left side of the bench, but he was a fine candidate and deserved to be confirmed. I have said so many times.
Click to expand...

So he is worth defending vehemently and forcing through just to spite Dems who are spiting Trump?
 
Not sure Ford's request for a FBI investigation shows anything. Amazing at all the assumptions people quickly make today on both sides. Not saying whether story is true or not, but if she were being a good Progressive to blow up a conservative candidate or if she was so drunk herself or traumatized that she started to believe it was Kavanaugh then of course she would be ok pushing for investigation to either delay or she actually believes it was him when maybe it wasn't.

I truly hope she testifies so the truth comes out either way. I think how he responds to whether he ever met her or had any interactions with her would be quite interesting and possibly telling. Surely if denies any knowledge of her that they had some interactions that some of her school friends or his could testify they at least were acquaintances. hopefully we will see Monday.

Interesting perspective from Observer article thought folks here would find interesting - https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article218620455.html
 
Wrangor said:
I don't think liberals really care about the nominee, simply that Trump nominated him/her. I think Kavanaugh has served as a Judge for many years without these dishonesty issues you claim affecting his decisions. He is rated very highly by his law peers. I think the political clamor has drowned out any honest reflection from the electorate. If I had to guess, I think Kavanaugh does a fine job, does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and judges from a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think he won't be a massive overturn any more than any other judge Trump would appoint, and in fact I think he is probably on the more moderate scale of judges that Trump could choose. So no, I don't think he is disqualified. I think that pretty much any candidate proposed is going to have a laundry list of 'offenses' from Democrats. Kavanaugh is rated highly, has judged fairly and conservatively and deserves to be confirmed.

I would have said the same thing about Garland, obviously he would judge from the left side of the bench, but he was a fine candidate and deserved to be confirmed. I have said so many times.
Click to expand...

Shit, I forgot about the sexual assault allegation against Garland. Crap, forgot about the sexual assault allegations against Gorsuch, Alito, and Roberts. My bad.
 
The evidence seems to be that she started talking about this to others in 2012 as part of counseling.

That she’s confident of the identity of those involved.

That she’s passed a lie detector test about this.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't think liberals really care about the nominee, simply that Trump nominated him/her. I think Kavanaugh has served as a Judge for many years without these dishonesty issues you claim affecting his decisions. He is rated very highly by his law peers. I think the political clamor has drowned out any honest reflection from the electorate. If I had to guess, I think Kavanaugh does a fine job, does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and judges from a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think he won't be a massive overturn any more than any other judge Trump would appoint, and in fact I think he is probably on the more moderate scale of judges that Trump could choose. So no, I don't think he is disqualified. I think that pretty much any candidate proposed is going to have a laundry list of 'offenses' from Democrats. Kavanaugh is rated highly, has judged fairly and conservatively and deserves to be confirmed.

I would have said the same thing about Garland, obviously he would judge from the left side of the bench, but he was a fine candidate and deserved to be confirmed. I have said so many times.
Click to expand...

He has lied under oath to this committee. That doesn't matter to you?
 
Wrangor said:
I don't think liberals really care about the nominee, simply that Trump nominated him/her. I think Kavanaugh has served as a Judge for many years without these dishonesty issues you claim affecting his decisions. He is rated very highly by his law peers. I think the political clamor has drowned out any honest reflection from the electorate. If I had to guess, I think Kavanaugh does a fine job, does not overturn Roe v. Wade, and judges from a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think he won't be a massive overturn any more than any other judge Trump would appoint, and in fact I think he is probably on the more moderate scale of judges that Trump could choose. So no, I don't think he is disqualified. I think that pretty much any candidate proposed is going to have a laundry list of 'offenses' from Democrats. Kavanaugh is rated highly, has judged fairly and conservatively and deserves to be confirmed.

I would have said the same thing about Garland, obviously he would judge from the left side of the bench, but he was a fine candidate and deserved to be confirmed. I have said so many times.
Click to expand...

This didn’t happen with Gorsuch.
 
lol has there ever been a collection of people on this bad of a streak of inaccuracy and ignorance, stepping in shit with every utterance?
 
And what did the FBI conclude following the investigation into Hill's accusation?

Asking for a friend as I didn't see where that hard-hitting piece of journalism on CNN addressed the actual findings of the investigation.
 
How about a 3day investigation? Shouldn't take longer than that to get the other witness in the room to make a statement to FBI agents
 
I don’t think it’s true (yet) that she has “refused” to testify. She, through her lawyer, is asking for an FBI investigation first.


Most of these folks involved understand that it is a crime to lie to the FBI.


So having them investigate and talk to potentially corroborating witnesses could be helpful. And doesn’t have to take that long.



What’s the freaking hurry?
 
ConnorEl said:
I don’t think it’s true (yet) that she has “refused” to testify. She, through her lawyer, is asking for an FBI investigation first.


Most of these folks involved understand that it is a crime to lie to the FBI.


So having them investigate and talk to potentially corroborating witnesses could be helpful. And doesn’t have to take that long.



What’s the freaking hurry?
Click to expand...

Jesus is asking for expedience.
 
Junebug said:
This is open and shut to me. Ford’s allegations, although vague, sound potentially credible (polygraph, raised with her doctor years ago). For that reason, and despite Feinstein’s bad-faith handling of the situation, the committee has correctly delayed its vote to give Ford a chance to tell her story under oath. In a turn of fate that both undermines Ford’s credibility and highlights the donkeys’ true motivations, she is refusing to do so. She has every right to do that, but, at the end of the day, the believability of her story was always going to come down to her testimony. Although this isn’t a criminal trial, there are reasons we have statutes of limitations in law, and, given Ford’s own inability to recall even the most basic details of the event, the odds of an investigation turning up additional credible facts are vanishingly small. Given her refusal to provide the only evidence upon which her claim could reasonably be evaluated, the committee should hear from Kavanaugh, and, if his testimony is credible, he should be voted out of committe.

The ploy for an FBI investigation is just that—a ploy, whose ultimate, and obvious, purpose is simply further delay on the hope that the midterms shift the balance of power. The pubs are acting in good faith, and they—rightly—aren’t blinking in this 11th hour game of chicken. All this does is give red-state donkeys cover for turning their thumbs down. For that, donkeys should thank Feinstein’s masterful political maneuvering, but there really isn’t any high ground here.
Click to expand...

She hasn't refused -- so your premise falls apart.
 
Junebug said:
The pubs are acting in good faith
Click to expand...

AstonishingBigHare.webp



RingedDifficultFish.webp


DizzyOccasionalAfricanwildcat.webp


SelfassuredBrightHalibut.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top