Media Bias

[Fau Teixeira]

Is this sarcasm?

Or are you sincerely saying that announcing opposition before a nomination has even been made is illegitimate and a nakedly political abuse of the process?

it was almost like the new senate majority leader stating that his entire goal was to make a president only have 1 term... who would do such a thing .. i'm aghast .. aghast !!

[CF DolFan]

Is this sarcasm?

Or are you sincerely saying that announcing opposition before a nomination has even been made is illegitimate and a nakedly political abuse of the process?

Yes. You can't say "I'm not going to be impartial and do whatever it takes to stop this" and then come up with something and complain people have a hard time believing you. We all knew it, as we do now about Dems trying to keep the investigation going for weeks, so when you admit it that makes it even harder to believe. This means you would need proof, real proof, and you don't have that. In fact .... you don't even have bad proof.

[Sunstroke]

When the American Bar Association says that there needs to be an investigation before confirmation, perhaps those without any knowledge of judiciary procedure should just relax in the cheap seats and enjoy the show...

[CF DolFan]

When the American Bar Association says that there needs to be an investigation before confirmation, perhaps those without any knowledge of judiciary procedure should just relax in the cheap seats and enjoy the show...

A committee for the American Bar Association that evaluates the professional qualifications of judges said it still stands behind Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The association’s president urged the Senate Judiciary Committee late Thursday to stall a confirmation vote until the FBI has conducted an investigation into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her.

The letter was not seen by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary before it was sent to the panel, committee chairman Paul Mosley wrote in a separate letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Friday.

The Standing Committee “acts independently” of the association’s leadership, he said.

[Phishfan]

The funny part is that she doesn't know which house the party was at. Obviously, it would have to belong to one of the people she named unless they broke into a neighbor's house for the gathering.

Not necessarily. When I was in high school we threw a party at my friend's aunt's. She wasn't there but was fully aware we were doing it. Resourceful kids can always find a place for a party without living there or breaking in.

[pondwater]

Not necessarily. When I was in high school we threw a party at my friend's aunt's. She wasn't there but was fully aware we were doing it. Resourceful kids can always find a place for a party without living there or breaking in.

Get real, there was no party, no house, or no driver.

[Phishfan]

Get real, there was no party, no house, or no driver.

I purposely left that part out because I don't know. I'm just pointing out that kids do party in places they don't live.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes. You can't say "I'm not going to be impartial and do whatever it takes to stop this" and then come up with something and complain people have a hard time believing you.

Are you talking about Brett Kavanaugh or Merrick Garland?

[Spider-Dan]

And yet another shoe drops:

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

[...]

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

---

In other words, the FBI's investigation will uncover that Kavanaugh definitely lied under oath about when he became aware of Ramirez's allegations.

Now, one might be inclined to say that the timing of when Kavanaugh found about these allegations is not relevant to whether or not he committed the assault, and that this is immaterial.  A person saying that would probably not have been alive during the '90s, when Bill Clinton - being investigated for a real estate deal, and later charges of sexual harassment - was asked about a consensual affair and lied under oath about it.

One might next be inclined to point out that Clinton was impeached but not convicted, and so therefore this obvious perjury isn't that important.  And that standard might apply... if Kavanaugh were already a sitting Justice.  But we're not talking about impeaching him; we're talking about whether he should get this job, or someone else should instead.  And perjury during your job interview seems like a disqualifying act.

And one more note: Bill Clinton was disbarred after committing perjury.  If we are to be consistent, I don't see how one could be on the Supreme Court while disbarred from it.

[CF DolFan]

And yet another shoe drops:

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

[...]

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

---

In other words, the FBI's investigation will uncover that Kavanaugh definitely lied under oath about when he became aware of Ramirez's allegations.

Now, one might be inclined to say that the timing of when Kavanaugh found about these allegations is not relevant to whether or not he committed the assault, and that this is immaterial.  A person saying that would probably not have been alive during the '90s, when Bill Clinton - being investigated for a real estate deal, and later charges of sexual harassment - was asked about a consensual affair and lied under oath about it.

One might next be inclined to point out that Clinton was impeached but not convicted, and so therefore this obvious perjury isn't that important.  And that standard might apply... if Kavanaugh were already a sitting Justice.  But we're not talking about impeaching him; we're talking about whether he should get this job, or someone else should instead.  And perjury during your job interview seems like a disqualifying act.

And one more note: Bill Clinton was disbarred after committing perjury.  If we are to be consistent, I don't see how one could be on the Supreme Court while disbarred from it.

Just like everything else ... I'll wait and see if it is true. So far ... there have been so many false claims by media and people that we have lost count. It seems that wanting something to be true is more important than verifying it is true these days.

[Spider-Dan]

So you're saying you question whether the text messages were forged?
I presume there is no question as to Kavanaugh's testimony that he found out about the allegations after the article was printed.

[CF DolFan]

So you're saying you question whether the text messages were forged?
I presume there is no question as to Kavanaugh's testimony that he found out about the allegations after the article was printed.

Dammit man. Who would have thought we should wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions. Oh yes ... it was me ... hahaha. The funny part is by omitting facts it shows media bias. perfect for this thread.

There's just one problem: the NBC News story leaves out a key detail. Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.

But Kavanaugh didn't find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for The New Yorker asked him for comment.

[Spider-Dan]

That characterization is wrong.  First off, from the transcript:

My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh:  No.

Complete question, definitive answer.  If he did know, that's perjury, open and shut.

That excerpt is from page 18.  Shortly thereafter, Kavanaugh goes on to say that he read in the New York Times (who passed on running the New Yorker story and only reported after the fact) that Ramirez was calling around, which in no way counteracts his claim that he knew nothing before the New Yorker story.  He also mentions that he personally heard about her calling around (with no timeframe given), which again does not cancel out his flat denial that he knew about the claim before the New Yorker story.

If you say under oath you hadn't discussed an incoming accusation before a given date, and you are on record strategizing against it before that date, you committed perjury. Period.

[pondwater]

And now the crying starts from the biased media and the left. When Trump complains about the FBI the Democrats stand behind them and say they are professionals and do a fine job, but now that the shoe is on the other foot the FBI did a poor job.....Can’t have your cake and eat it to!

[Fau Teixeira]

Next time the democrats have the senate and the presidency, expect to see the supreme court expanded to 15 members.  There's rumblings about it already. Since the Merrick Garland hypocrisy, it's pretty inevitable.