Originally posted by ursus arctos
View Post
-
I tried and lasted five minutes. Dick Durbin said something quite empathetic, asked Blasey Ford a question, then Chuck Grassley started talking and lizards ran up my spine so I stopped. -
I now better understand why so many of his supporters adopted the "even if it is true, it doesn't matter" strategy.Comment
-
They're all-in on Kavanaugh, they haven't got time before the midterms to get someone else up and IIRC from Chapo, the next Federalist Society pick was a woman and there was a real sense no woman would vote to overturn Roe no matter how Catholic they are.Comment
-
Judge has told the committee he does not want to testify, and the GOP has declined to force him to despite calls for a subpoena. — PoliticoOriginally posted by Incandenza View PostComment
-
One of the talking heads on PBS is from the Washington Post, he pointed out that it's rather telling that the other person who could speak to the incident and would testify on behalf of Kavanaugh doesn't want to face any questions.Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View PostComment
-
I was running during the first part of this. I've started watching but it's horrible. Grassley is hideous, and just came out with a whiney angry rant, as if he's the real victim here. I should just go out again.Comment
-
The majority's protection of Judge has been among the most disgusting aspects of the entire process.
He's absolutely crucial to the fundamental question (and extremely material to any investigation of Kavanaugh's claim to have been an absolute choir boy), and they are doing everything in their power to make sure he doesn't have to testify under oath about or answer a single question. And their ham-handed attempt last night with the two guys who think that they may have assaulted just makes Judge even more essential.Comment
-
Flynnie, I don't know about Coney Barrett.
She's been a leading member of Faculty for Life for years and has said that Roe "create[ed] through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand"Comment
-
I've read that he's a recovering Alcoholic, unsure of length of sobriety or indeed if it's lip service, which one would assume is through the A.A. fellowship although not 100% a definite. I was thinking about this last night as I'm also a recovering alcoholic. If what I have suggested is true and that he is an active AA fellowship member then the 'steps' could be extremely problematic for the GOP namely:Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
It is suggested that you do not lie/cheat/steal or otherwise perform actions that can cause others harm or distress, additionally you must endeavour to be truthful in as many matters as you can. I could put forward a case that if he ever had to speak under oath the truth would have to come out, as he could not be coerced or bribed into lying.
Also any fellow AA's reading this may be asking "But you are also supposed to attempt to make amends with those that you have harmed, so why hasn't he come forward?" which is a decent point but there is a get out with that one in that if the harm to either yourself or others is disproportionate to the 'gift of unburdening yourself'
Just my musings as I would have thought that Judge would have been called as he could add an element of corroboration.
Grassley is not a very nice man is he?Comment
-
The interesting thing about Coney Barrett is that she will actually vote to reverse Roe. And that might make her unacceptable to Collins and Murkowski. Kavanaugh is more cynical and would "keep" Roe v Wade while making sure that all it's all but meaningless.Comment
-
SB, that may well be the case, but I don't think that Roberts would reverse Roe, which would make her position academic for now.
Reverend, you could well be right, though Judge also has very real legal reasons not to lie under oath, and it seems virtually certain that his only choices when faced with real questioning about Kavanaugh's behaviour at Georgetown Prep would be to a) contradict Kavanaugh, b) lie or c) claim that he doesn't recall anything (including incidents that he has described in a book and magazine articles).
It sucks to be him, but it is infinitely worse to have been one of his victims.Comment
-
I'm sure Roberts wouldn't reverse it. But my feeling is that Coney Barrett might not get the votes from Senate because she's to explicitly opposed to Roe v Wade. Murkowski and Collins can hide behind Kavanaugh's figleaf, but Barrett doesn't have one.
All that means, to me, is that the next candidate would be Hardiman or Kethledge (who'll both do just as much damage to Roe and Kavanaugh, of course).Comment
-
They may think that they can't be sure that Hardiman or Kethledge haven't assaulted someone in time to get them confirmed.
No matter where one stands on Kavanaugh, there are clearly issues with the vetting process that they are using.Comment
-
This is why they've flown that woman from arizona to interrogate her.Comment
-
Yeah. Mitchell may not be great. But imagine these questions coming from Hatch, Grassley and Ted Cruz.Comment
-
Trump is apparently watching this. I wonder what he makes of it? I mean it moves pretty slowly for him,, and there are a lot of words.Comment
-
Is Lindsey Graham one of those confirmed bachelors who doesn't see the point of women?Comment
-
If Trump ever falls into the merchandise on his tour of the wood-chipper factory, I hope Lindsey Graham is standing nearby and Trump grabs clumsily for his coat sleeve.Comment
-
Republicans having a good go at blaming Ford for the format of the hearings.
Lindsey Graham doing a spectacular peroration in the corridor. I'm not sure it's a good idea. Cornyn had the sense to be low key.Comment
-
M. Judge
Another Idiocracy connectionComment
-
So do we assume that the Arizona prosecutor was just filibustering for the Republican senators? She got no traction on anything, so was she literally just doing a job to fill the time and prevent the public seeing Cruz and Graham and Hatch and Grassley?Comment
-
She ought to have done the corridor interview as well, judging by Graham's performance.Comment
-
That corridor thing is bizarre. Why don't they just ban reporters from standing there? We don't have anything like that.Comment
Comment