debeda

And kavenaugh reviewed their staff list that night and answered Harris' question the next day with a no. Why do you leftys keep bringing up Harris' bizarre line of questioning?

debeda

Well on that you are correct in a sense. However, posting links and writing a tome to you won't do it because your thought process is biased and illogical. Therefore all of your conclusions are also biased and illogical. There's no way to logically challenge that in a way you might understand. For instance saying that Prez Trump' s efforts are destroying the republic. There is no data either proven or empirical to support that. It is merely your conclusion based on your bias.

debeda

The questions were worded in such a way that no simple yes or no was possible. For instance, have you ever spoken to someone who now or ever has worked for Otis elevator. Yes or no?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

What he is apparently saying is that the collectivist right outweighs the individual rights. That would be in line with most of his other posts.

Smedley_buzkill

Matter of fact, given the Democratic propensity for nitpicking the most innocuous statements, any hesitation about answering anything that would be deliberately misconstrued is quite understandable.
Now, are you still in the habit of engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with your pet hamster? A simple yes or no will suffice. Yes or no. Stop trying to obfuscate the matter.
This is not a "think outside the box" inquiry. Yes or no. Should I have the FBI interview your hamster?

debeda

Geo

By The New York Times
Sept. 30, 2018

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.


I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.

PeterS

It doesn't matter if he was truthful. Kavanaugh is a partisan hack and will do anything conservatives want him to do. This is the most important Supreme Court nomination in their lifetimes...

straightUp Loc: California

So you're making excuses for not challenging my logic. Why don't you just say you disagree with me then and leave it at that?


Where did I say Trump's efforts is destroying the republic? Look, you can't expect to challenge anyone's logic if you're going to resort to fallacy. What I said (and it wasn't on this thread) is that Trump's efforts are an attack on the republic, that doesn't necessarily mean the attack is having any effect.

The other thing to realize is that I am very specific with my language. So when I refer to our republic, I am not referring to data-spewing systems like our economy; I am referring specifically to the rules and the structure of what makes our government a representative republic.

Also, since I'm already lecturing you anyway... "empirical" and "proven" are essentially the same thing. Maybe you meant to say "proven or anecdotal"?

straightUp Loc: California

If you understood the senator's line of questioning you would know there isn't anything bizarre about it, in fact you would know that Kamala was looking for more than a simple "yes" or "no". It's not uncommon, especially in the context of judgment (which is what a hearing is), for a question to require a simple "yes" or "no" answer as a way to confirm a much larger answer. The fact that Kavanaugh couldn't answer the question until the next day was precisely the confirmation Harris was looking for.

The reason why "leftys" keep referring to this line of questioning is because unlike the #me-too circus, Kavanaugh's relation to the ongoing investigations into the Trump campaign is a critical aspect of his nomination. When Kamala Harris was elected to Senate, she took an oath the protect the Constitution and that is exactly what she was doing with her questions. The Constitution divides the government into three branches to provide checks and balances which is precisely why Congress is tasked with confirming a president's nomination to the Supreme Court in the first place. It's therefore the sworn duty for Congress NOT to confirm Kavanaugh if there is a link between him and Trump that allows Trump to overstep his constitutional bounds.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Harris and Booker are both rowing boats with one oar.

straightUp Loc: California

'seems like a pointless analogy to me, but I guess if it makes you feel better...

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

You are in the golden state, what legislation has Harris initiated and pushed into being a bill that has passed?

straightUp Loc: California

Why do you insist on playing the fool? I already explained why the answer *should* have been very easy to answer. Harris wasn't asking about ANY conversation... She was asking specifically about conversations he may have had about Mueller and his investigations. And considering Kavanaugh's position on the U.S. Court of Appeals, ANY such conversation SHOULD have been regarded with utmost care... at least enough to remember who he spoke with and why.

His delayed answer either proves he can't be trusted with confidence (because he can't remember who he had critical conversations with) or that he was uncomfortable with telling the truth, which again proves he can't be trusted. Harris nailed him. She knows it... He knows it... and the entire committee knows it. The question now is whether enough senators are willing to dismiss it.

straightUp Loc: California

Seriously? The Senate has been under Republican control since 2017 which is when Harris took office, so that seems like a stupid question to me. And how exactly is that related to her role in the confirmation hearings anyway? It seems to me that you're inability to dispute her effectiveness on the committee is leaving you grasping at straws.