Do you have respect for Lisa Murkowski today or not?

Sep 2006
5,783
5,978
Englewood, Fl
#61
I don't know much about the senator - but this absurd statement certainly doesn't prompt any respect from me.

Either fairness and the presumption of innocent matters or it doesn't. You can't deny opportunity to someone simply because their political opponents are smearing them in the media. That is no way to run a government - and if I lived in Alaska her cowardice and or stupidity on this issue would have lost her my support. The best way to protect our institutions of Government is to hold dear the principles that created them - not to toss them aside to accommodate a smear job.

The fact she admits he was a good man and was treated unfairly yet still refused to vote for him makes her vote one of the more contemptible ones in my judgement.
You talk about presumption of innocence right before you condemn Dr Ford as a liar and the Democrats on the committee as in a conspiracy to smear Kavanaugh. Where is their presumption of innocence? Also, that presumption is established after charges are made and before a finding of facts on the charges through an investigation. A real investigation. Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Durbin if he wanted to clear his name through a thorough FBI probe of the charges. He nearly swallowed his tongue. He said I'll do what the committee wants me to do, knowing full well that the GOP wanted no part in a true investigation. The GOP members on the committee were unwilling to wait for such a real investigation because they said it was too close to the Nov Elections. Yet, they were perfectly willing to stall the Garland hearings for a year and then the leadership denied even an up or down vote for a candidate who wasn't charged with any crime or criminal behavior at all. How's that for upholding principles? LOL Hypocrisy thy name is McConnell.
 
Likes: KnotaFrayed
Oct 2014
23,677
3,671
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#62
You talk about presumption of innocence right before you condemn Dr Ford as a liar and the Democrats on the committee as in a conspiracy to smear Kavanaugh. Where is their presumption of innocence? Also, that presumption is established after charges are made and before a finding of facts on the charges through an investigation. A real investigation. Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Durbin if he wanted to clear his name through a thorough FBI probe of the charges. He nearly swallowed his tongue. He said I'll do what the committee wants me to do, knowing full well that the GOP wanted no part in a true investigation. The GOP members on the committee were unwilling to wait for such a real investigation because they said it was too close to the Nov Elections. Yet, they were perfectly willing to stall the Garland hearings for a year and then the leadership denied even an up or down vote for a candidate who wasn't charged with any crime or criminal behavior at all. How's that for upholding principles? LOL Hypocrisy thy name is McConnell.
Did you watch her testimony? I really wanted to give her the opportunity.

She knew too few details, her witnesses all recanted, did not know how she arrived, or left, was scared to fly but jet sets around regularly (actually, I've heard her lawyers should be disbarred for not having informed her of the options available to her).

Then, it comes out that she wanted to remain private, that Feinstein had the letter for months and only revealed at the last minute to ensure that it became a public fiasco. The push was to delay until the midterms, where they hope to win enough to delay another 2 years.

He was being cooperative, they kept asking the same question over and over and over...

As for murkowski - there's a probable reason why she voted as she did...


 
Sep 2006
5,783
5,978
Englewood, Fl
#63
He wasn't being cooperative at all. They asked him questions that he would dance around so they had to ask him again. The biggest question was "wouldn't you want a complete FBI investigation to clear your name?" Guess what, he didn't answer that one either. And, by his evasive manner he left no doubt that he had something to hide. Unless of course you're looking through a cultist's lens, which is how you see the world.
 
Likes: KnotaFrayed
Oct 2014
23,677
3,671
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#64
He wasn't being cooperative at all. They asked him questions that he would dance around so they had to ask him again. The biggest question was "wouldn't you want a complete FBI investigation to clear your name?" Guess what, he didn't answer that one either. And, by his evasive manner he left no doubt that he had something to hide. Unless of course you're looking through a cultist's lens, which is how you see the world.
Again, he has gone through 6 background checks in his career, he had letters of support of dozens of women who had worked with and around him, the fact that he's been consistently married for as long as he has points against that... Next, the letter had been available for several months which allowed for more than enough time to both perform the investigation AND have kept Ford out of the headlines as was her wishes.

More importantly; the accused is presumed innocent, and dr Ford failed each of the credibility checks. It didn't meet the bar. All kavanaugh had to do was go through the process, if she did not meet "reasonable doubt" there was no further need.

But really, everything she was doing... Even down to cute voice with head tilt, if she was questioned further it was deeper tone aggressive facial expression...

The fear of flying, but a track record of regular flights kinda hurt her credibility, especially that her lawyers did not inform her that the proceedings could have been done without the flight. Apparently, that could get their lawyers sanctioned or possibly disbarred, I'm not the law nerd, but lawyers are apparently supposed to tell people all their options in a circumstance.
 
Sep 2006
5,783
5,978
Englewood, Fl
#65
Again, he has gone through 6 background checks in his career, he had letters of support of dozens of women who had worked with and around him, the fact that he's been consistently married for as long as he has points against that... Next, the letter had been available for several months which allowed for more than enough time to both perform the investigation AND have kept Ford out of the headlines as was her wishes.

More importantly; the accused is presumed innocent, and dr Ford failed each of the credibility checks. It didn't meet the bar. All kavanaugh had to do was go through the process, if she did not meet "reasonable doubt" there was no further need.

But really, everything she was doing... Even down to cute voice with head tilt, if she was questioned further it was deeper tone aggressive facial expression...

The fear of flying, but a track record of regular flights kinda hurt her credibility, especially that her lawyers did not inform her that the proceedings could have been done without the flight. Apparently, that could get their lawyers sanctioned or possibly disbarred, I'm not the law nerd, but lawyers are apparently supposed to tell people all their options in a circumstance.
As is usual, you see what you want to see. Her demeanor was a whole lot better than his.
 
Oct 2014
23,677
3,671
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#66
As is usual, you see what you want to see. Her demeanor was a whole lot better than his.
No, I sat, and I told myself, "give her any benefit of doubt".

The standard is, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. Now, I come in believing what this woman will say until something shows up as a red flag.

So, as soon as the corroboration was recused, that REALLY hurt the ability to reach beyond reasonable doubt.

Remembering details about the event but most everything else surrounding it is forgotten, that's odd. Then, asking about stuff in the recent past, she would struggle, need regular consultations, etc...

It's ok, he got confirmed... They got the investigation they wanted, and with their sworn testimonies on record.... Uh oh.
 
Sep 2006
5,783
5,978
Englewood, Fl
#67
No, I sat, and I told myself, "give her any benefit of doubt".

The standard is, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. Now, I come in believing what this woman will say until something shows up as a red flag.

So, as soon as the corroboration was recused, that REALLY hurt the ability to reach beyond reasonable doubt.

Remembering details about the event but most everything else surrounding it is forgotten, that's odd. Then, asking about stuff in the recent past, she would struggle, need regular consultations, etc...

It's ok, he got confirmed... They got the investigation they wanted, and with their sworn testimonies on record.... Uh oh.
Who got the investigation they wanted? BTW nothing Dr Ford said was odd. If you understood PTSD you would know that. I don't believe for one second that you listened to what she had to say with an open mind. What on earth does "the corroboration was recused" mean? The so-called investigation was a total sham. And the FBI reports were kept from the Democrats on the committee by not allowing any time to read them. An hour to review over 1000 pages of testimony and summaries by the agents is hardly a fair look at what happened. It was a whitewashed and rushed confirmation and it isn't over yet because these women aren't going away.
 

Southern Dad

Former Staff
Feb 2015
39,014
8,057
Shady Dale, Georgia
#68
I'd really like to see your source for that. I hope it's a good one.
FACT CHECK: Are There More Records On Kavanaugh Than The Last Five SCOTUS Justices Combined?

Now that I have provided a source, does that change anything in your mind about the argument that not enough documents were provided? I understand hating him for his viewpoints. I'm good with that. But as for documents, you can only review so many. They gave more documents on Kavanaugh than the five previous nominees combined.
 
Dec 2006
8,163
9,954
Mmm, muffins
#69
FACT CHECK: Are There More Records On Kavanaugh Than The Last Five SCOTUS Justices Combined?

Now that I have provided a source, does that change anything in your mind about the argument that not enough documents were provided? I understand hating him for his viewpoints. I'm good with that. But as for documents, you can only review so many. They gave more documents on Kavanaugh than the five previous nominees combined.
Well enough, thank you

There are far more records for Kavanaugh due in part to the increased use of email in the public sector, meaning written communications are more easily available. Kagan also served in the White House Counsel’s office, but there were far fewer pages of emails produced from her time there.


NARA estimates that Kavanaugh sent, received or was copied on 170,000 emails while he served as a White House lawyer. Each email equals approximately five pages including attachments, so about 850,000 of the pages that NARA expects to review in response to Grassley’s request are emails.
FACT CHECK: Are There More Records On Kavanaugh Than The Last Five SCOTUS Justices Combined?
 
Likes: Southern Dad
Dec 2006
8,163
9,954
Mmm, muffins
#70
Now that I have provided a source, does that change anything in your mind about the argument that not enough documents were provided?
I don't believe I ever made a claim either way whether there were "enough" documents or not.

But as for documents, you can only review so many. They gave more documents on Kavanaugh than the five previous nominees combined.
Agreed there. Bury them in documents so they can't possibly read them all. But don't include the important stuff.

Democrats and their allies have suggested that Grassley’s request is not as extensive as Republicans claim, in part because he did not ask for records from the time Kavanaugh was a staff secretary under President George W. Bush from 2003 to 2006. Those records, they argue, contain information about Kavanaugh’s views on key issues.


“I’d rather review the 1+ million pages of Kavanaugh’s ACTUAL RECORDS during his 3 controversial years as WH Staff Secretary,” Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a tweet.
FACT CHECK: Are There More Records On Kavanaugh Than The Last Five SCOTUS Justices Combined?