RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The Kavanaugh Hearings: This is a good spoof
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/18 1:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'd guess the Dems have little chance of taking back the senate. I doubt they'll even have a net gain of seats. It could very well end up Reps +2 this cycle.

The Dems will pick up some house seats, probably 20-25. Minimum +11, max about +40.


Andddd....the majority of people didn't believe Donald was gonna win, too. Shocked Razz

(....remind me, did 538 pick him 2 years ago?)


They had:
71.4% Clinton chance of winning
28.6% Trump chance of winning

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

But that miscalculation by everybody is attributed to "shy Trump supporters" speaking to pollsters. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "shy Republican supporter".


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/18 7:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

538 actually liked Trump's chances better than most predictors



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/24/18 7:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
538 actually liked Trump's chances better than most predictors

And the outcome was completely consistent with what they were forecasting. The problem was not with the polls, nor with "shy voters", but rather the media and others not understanding what those numbers actually mean and how probability works.

If you say that Trump has a 28.6% chance of winning, it is not any more of a "shocker" when he wins than it is a shocker when Aaron Judge gets a hit (.280 Batting Avg in 2018).

What happened was that Trump won a few key states by an amount within the margin of error for those polls. And enough tipped his way that they won him the electoral college. Because this was a possibility, 538 gave him a reasonable chance in the election.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 1:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
538 actually liked Trump's chances better than most predictors


Certainly gave him better odds than the Princeton Election Consortium survey coupled with the statistical Bayesian model developed by Sam Wang:

Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump


Quote:
Other polls were less bullish on a Clinton victory. FiveThirtyEight said the likelihood Ms Clinton would win was 65 per cent, while the New York Times upshot said there was a 85 per cent chance.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 1:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
I'd like to see if these two women who lied about being raped by Justice Kavanaugh will see perjury charges. They should! It's very clear at this point that they lied under oath. Ford moreso than Swetnick (who has a long history of false allegations and courtroom visits). Ford lied about being a psychologist, writing the letter (where Leland Kaiser was identified as "he"), getting help with the letter, WRITING the letter, and being raped. Then she (along with her attorney) tried to intimidate Leland into changing her testimony.

My question is, will there be charges for these perjurers, or will we see two system of justice, like we did with the Clintons and many others?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/grassley-calls-doj-investigation-kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-lawyer-avenatti-n924431
I know that Avenatti and Swetnick have already been thrown under the bus, but perjury charges may indeed be coming.
Quote:
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick, the third woman who made accusations last month against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 7:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Senator Grassley's 12-page letter to AG Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Wray, along with 17 pages of attached emails, letters and sworn statements, asking the DOJ and FBI to investigate Swetnick and attorney Avenatti for criminal conspiracy to violate several federal criminal laws, can be found at a further link (which I can't embed here) at the end of this link. The material is a meticulous and devastating indictment of the credibility of Julie Swetnick -- her unbalanced legal, psychological and sexual past -- and of attorney Avenatti's smarmy past.

I don't think I've ever commented here on Christine Ford. I did not find her "credible" at all, but perhaps that's because I tend to be very careful with adjectives in such hot situations. I did find her to be sympathetic and effective in her testimony, and at the end of it I though Kavanaugh was sunk.

But only because her testimony was sympathetically effective, not because it was credible, as I use the term. A mere allegation, which is denied, is not credible without more, which means more supporting evidence. Ford had none. To the extent there was other relevant evidence, it was all in favor of Kavanaugh.

Ford's story was full of ambiguity and holes and obvious lies. She had no fear of flying, the two door story about her house was shown to be phony, she has a long history of psychological problems in high school and college (based partly on her own admissions and also via leaked SJC interviews), and she was coached by activist Democrat lawyers, including a high school best friend, throughout the process. At best, she was a naive tool of the partisan Democrat stop-Trump's-nominees-at-costs movement. At worst, and more likely, she was an eagerly willing "resistance" co-partisan who was willing to exaggerate and fudge fuzzy facts that she knew no one could directly disprove.

This whole shameful process was even worse than the treatment of Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. It was a disgrace. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the left wing goddess, has yet again today blamed Congress as the "obvious culprit" for these partisan judicial charades since 1987.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 8:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Senator Grassley's 12-page letter to AG Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Wray, along with 17 pages of attached emails, letters and sworn statements, asking the DOJ and FBI to investigate Swetnick and attorney Avenatti for criminal conspiracy to violate several federal criminal laws, can be found at a further link (which I can't embed here) at the end of this link. The material is a meticulous and devastating indictment of the credibility of Julie Swetnick -- her unbalanced legal, psychological and sexual past -- and of attorney Avenatti's smarmy past.

I don't think I've ever commented here on Christine Ford. I did not find her "credible" at all, but perhaps that's because I tend to be very careful with adjectives in such hot situations. I did find her to be sympathetic and effective in her testimony, and at the end of it I though Kavanaugh was sunk.

But only because her testimony was sympathetically effective, not because it was credible, as I use the term. A mere allegation, which is denied, is not credible without more, which means more supporting evidence. Ford had none. To the extent there was other relevant evidence, it was all in favor of Kavanaugh.

Ford's story was full of ambiguity and holes and obvious lies. She had no fear of flying, the two door story about her house was shown to be phony, she has a long history of psychological problems in high school and college (based partly on her own admissions and also via leaked SJC interviews), and she was coached by activist Democrat lawyers, including a high school best friend, throughout the process. At best, she was a naive tool of the partisan Democrat stop-Trump's-nominees-at-costs movement. At worst, and more likely, she was an eagerly willing "resistance" co-partisan who was willing to exaggerate and fudge fuzzy facts that she knew no one could directly disprove.

This whole shameful process was even worse than the treatment of Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. It was a disgrace. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the left wing goddess, has yet again today blamed Congress as the "obvious culprit" for these partisan judicial charades since 1987.


Bork is a different situation, but Thomas was like Kavanaugh, lied to Congress to get on the Supreme Court and protect his reputation. They had no other choice.

Who coached Ford to tell her therapist in 2012 that she was assaulted by boys from an elitist school who went on to be high ranking members of society? That was some very forward-thinking coaching - or she was resisting Trump back when he was only a real-estate developer.

Kavanaugh sat there and blatantly lied with his rich-kid sneering frat boy face about what he had written in his yearbook. Do we consider it "must tell the truth to Congress unless it is something we will accept lies about"?

I don't see how a guy like Kavanaugh - who repeatedly drank ILLEGALLY until he was 21 could get a job as a local judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice. If you blatantly break the law over and over - and admit to it - that should be the end of your chances to be a judge.

Don McGann limited the FBI investigation (allegedly talking Trump out of making it open by saying that an open investigation would not have the desired results) to not include friends of Ramirez and other people who knew Kavanaugh as a heavy drinker at college. The "falsely accused" judge who needed a severely limited FBI investigation.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 8:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
I don't see how a guy like Kavanaugh - who repeatedly drank ILLEGALLY until he was 21 could get a job as a local judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice. If you blatantly break the law over and over - and admit to it - that should be the end of your chances to be a judge.


There wouldn't be enough qualified people left if you eliminate everyone who committed multiple ticketable offenses from holding office.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 8:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
I don't see how a guy like Kavanaugh - who repeatedly drank ILLEGALLY until he was 21 could get a job as a local judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice. If you blatantly break the law over and over - and admit to it - that should be the end of your chances to be a judge.


There wouldn't be enough qualified people left if you eliminate everyone who committed multiple ticketable offenses from holding office.


If you are caught drinking underage do they just give you a ticket? Seems like that is a heavier crime than speeding or jaywalking.

But if you announced that speeding tickets and jaywalking would preclude you from being a judge, I think that a large number of lawyers and aspiring lawyers would make sure they did neither. Although it could be done as a limit - you can only have N or fewer in your history. Above a certain amount it starts to clearly be a "disregard for the law".


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/25/18 9:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
I don't see how a guy like Kavanaugh - who repeatedly drank ILLEGALLY until he was 21 could get a job as a local judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice. If you blatantly break the law over and over - and admit to it - that should be the end of your chances to be a judge.


There wouldn't be enough qualified people left if you eliminate everyone who committed multiple ticketable offenses from holding office.


If you are caught drinking underage do they just give you a ticket? Seems like that is a heavier crime than speeding or jaywalking.

But if you announced that speeding tickets and jaywalking would preclude you from being a judge, I think that a large number of lawyers and aspiring lawyers would make sure they did neither. Although it could be done as a limit - you can only have N or fewer in your history. Above a certain amount it starts to clearly be a "disregard for the law".


What would you expect? Lock some poor teenager in a cell with a real criminal? I'd guess most rich, white kids like Kavanaugh probably don't even get ticketed. Just a warning and a ride home.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/27/18 9:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Some comments to tfan:

It's not illegal in the vast majority of states, including Maryland and Delaware, to drink underage at a private party or in a private home, or with parental permission or in the presence of supervising adults. It's illegal for a public house (bar, restaurant, store) to serve or sell to underage persons.

Ford and her lawyers flatly refused to provide the supposed therapist's notes to the SJC. Even the hearsay report in the Washington post admits that the supposed notes do not name Kavanaugh and are inconsistent with Ford's testimony as to who was at the party. Therefore, no one knows what the supposed notes say, if anything, and hence they are a legal nullity and of zero evidentiary weight to any fair minded person.

The FBI investigated Kavanaugh six times for the highest security clearance jobs in the country over the past 25 years, including private secretary to the man who carried the nuclear codes, President Bush. Alcohol and drug use is an integral part of all such FBI investigations, which have probably included hundreds of interviewees over those 25 years. In addition, the SJC investigators interviewed 45 high school and college friends of Kavanaugh, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and found no evidence to support any of the accusations against Kavanaugh. Nor was any evidence against Kavanaugh voiced by any of the 10 interviewees in the final one-week FBI review. Finally, more than 60 of Kavanaugh's high school friends sent a letter to the SJC under penalty of perjury stating that they never saw him engage in the kind of conduct alleged by Swetnick, and several of his college friends did likewise.

Of course, you or anyone else are entitled to think it was Thomas and Kavanaugh who were lying, just because you want to.

Like Ford, Anita Hill had absolutely no evidentiary corroboration for her tepid claims of "sexual harassment" and all the circumstantial evidence was against her. Senator Arlen Spector, who voted against Bork, said publicly that Hill had committed perjury.

Senator Grassley has just sent another letter to the DOJ and FBI referring attorney Avenatti for suborning perjury. This letter is based on reporting by NBC that essentially found Swetnick and another anonymous accuser to be lying, but which NBC concealed from publication during the hearings.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-26%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Second%20Avenatti%20Referral)%20-%20with%20enclosures_Redacted.pdf
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/18 6:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Some comments to tfan:

It's not illegal in the vast majority of states, including Maryland and Delaware, to drink underage at a private party or in a private home, or with parental permission or in the presence of supervising adults. It's illegal for a public house (bar, restaurant, store) to serve or sell to underage persons.


According to this Wikipedia article, it is only legal in Maryland to drink at a private residence so long as it is furnished or allowed by a member of that person's immediate family (typically a parent). Unfortunately, the link to support that section is dead. But assuming they are quoting the law, it seems to be worded other than that a child can be given blanket approval to drink anywhere. An immediate family member can be a brother or sister. Doesn't seem like they would write a law to allow an adult sibling to give approval to an underage sibling to drink anywhere.

Also, according to Wikipedia, when Kavanaugh was doing underage drinking in Connecticut at college, he would need parental consent (Underage consumption is allowed on private non alcohol-selling premises with parental consent, for medical and religious purposes, and on alcohol-selling premises with parental consent). The fact that they are allowing parental consent drinking in a bar makes it seem to me like it means the parents have to be there.

Quote:
Ford and her lawyers flatly refused to provide the supposed therapist's notes to the SJC. Even the hearsay report in the Washington Post admits that the supposed notes do not name Kavanaugh and are inconsistent with Ford's testimony as to who was at the party. Therefore, no one knows what the supposed notes say, if anything, and hence they are a legal nullity and of zero evidentiary weight to any fair-minded person.


If they weren't released, they appear to have been leaked. You can find articles saying that the notes show she is lying because she says two guys were in the room and the notes say four, which Ford says was the number at the party that the therapist incorrectly thought were all in the room. Curious and damaging to her case though that she didn't want them released since it is key to demonstrating she isn't making something up to block a Supreme Court nomination. Does the entire notebook about Ford need to be released? Or a double-sided page with nothing redacted that is not relevant, yet would be embarrassing to her?

Quote:
The FBI investigated Kavanaugh six times for the highest security clearance jobs in the country over the past 25 years, including private secretary to the man who carried the nuclear codes, President Bush. Alcohol and drug use is an integral part of all such FBI investigations, which have probably included hundreds of interviewees over those 25 years.


I have had a top secret clearance and I don't think that it ever requires hundreds of interviews. I believe my initial clearance (before the 5-year update cycle) went back 10 years and I am finding people saying that on the web (it goes less than 10 years if 18 occurs before that). You give them some amount of references (no more than 5 that I recall) and then they interview some of them (had people say they weren't talked to, as well as most or all family members saying the same thing) and potentially, but not necessarily, anyone they mention, nearby neighbors and close co-workers. Kavanaugh was a law clerk until 1997. Law clerks need top-secret security clearances?

But in any event, if they had investigated Kavanaugh thoroughly back to freshman in college, they should have found out he was a heavy drinker at Yale, at least as an undergrad. His share-a-bathroom dorm mate wanted to tell the FBI as much a month or two ago. One of his Yale drinking buddies also wanted to testify to that effect to the FBI. But they probably consider current heavy drinking to be an issue, not when you were an undergrad.

But Kavanaugh's drinking isn't an issue for me. I believe he can lie. There is no need for me to feel that he "blacked out" and not remembered grabbing Ford.

Quote:
In addition, the SJC investigators interviewed 45 high school and college friends of Kavanaugh, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and found no evidence to support any of the accusations against Kavanaugh.


What is your source for saying that "SCJ investigators" (don't know who they are) interviewed friends of Ramirez, Ford, and Swetnick? All three came late in the came, and Swetnick came very late.

Quote:
Nor was any evidence against Kavanaugh voiced by any of the 10 interviewees in the final one-week FBI review.


Only his friend Judge from high school is really relevant. That is, besides Kavanaugh and Ford - who they didn't talk to. The 4 other people she says were at the party can't be expected to have recall of that party as it sounds like those kids were frequent partiers and it was only a "small gathering with drinks" affair. Ramirez's attorney says that she gave them a list of 20 names that would have been at the party and they contacted three, with one refusing to cooperate. They are also said to have contacted a friend who apparently wasn't at the party. It does undercut her case significantly if she didn't tell anyone, or talk about it with anyone who witnessed it. Although it could have been something she wanted to repress or forget about or she was embarassed that she was really wasted when it happened.

Quote:
Finally, more than 60 of Kavanaugh's high school friends sent a letter to the SJC under penalty of perjury stating that they never saw him engage in the kind of conduct alleged by Swetnick, and several of his college friends did likewise.


Wasn't Swetnick out of high school and at parties of older kids?

It is impressive that he has 60 people from high school who both want to go to bat for him and can claim to know him well.

Quote:
Of course, you or anyone else are entitled to think it was Thomas and Kavanaugh who were lying, just because you want to.


I don't think it has been proven that Kavanaugh isn't lying or that Thomas wasn't lying. Which would mean that you would have to believe they were telling the truth just because you want to. You can't cite proof that they are. You can only say "I don't see proof that they were lying". In my case, I want him off the court just for openly lying about his yearbook, most notably about Renate. He had a chance to apologize for them degrading her in the yearbook, instead he just openly lied, claiming that saying they were her alumni and alumnius meant that they were good/special friends. Throw the bum out.

Quote:
Like Ford, Anita Hill had absolutely no evidentiary corroboration for her tepid claims of "sexual harassment" and all the circumstantial evidence was against her. Senator Arlen Spector, who voted against Bork, said publicly that Hill had committed perjury.


I don't remember that case enough to recall what circumstantial evidence could be said to have been against Hill. I recall her case being weakened because she followed him to a subsequent job or jobs after incidents she says were disturbing.

Years later this woman did speak out against Thomas and his proclivities: Clarence Thomas was 'obsessed with porn,' former colleague and girlfriend says in interview

Grassley should be elated about Swetnick and Avenatti because, while they were not part of the FBI investigation, Collins cited her uninvestigated claim as a reason to believe Kavanaugh.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/18 2:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You can do a better job of researching the complex national drinking laws of 36 years ago than Wikipedia if you think it's relevant to today, and the history of the Clarence nomination, if you're so motivated. I've already done it -- including rewatching Thomas's entire hearing -- and don't think it's worth discussing.

On one other point, the SJC is the Senate Judiciary Committee, which processes judicial nominations. For purposes of Kavanaugh's nomination they had their own specially enlarged team of investigators, comprised of lawyers and ex-law enforcement, who were ceaselessly investigating every lead and accusation against Kavanaugh. Just log onto the SJC timeline pages to see all the recorded activity.

As to your question on this:

tfan wrote:
Quote:
In addition, the SJC investigators interviewed 45 high school and college friends of Kavanaugh, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and found no evidence to support any of the accusations against Kavanaugh.


What is your source for saying that "SCJ investigators" (don't know who they are) interviewed friends of Ramirez, Ford, and Swetnick? All three came late in the came, and Swetnick came very late.


My source is the letter from Senator Grassley to Sessions and Wray that I linked above, which says:

Quote:
During the course of the Committee’s investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Committee investigators spoke with 45 individuals, obtained 25 written statements, and reviewed numerous other materials. This included speaking with ten associates of Ms. Swetnick who knew her at various times in her life ranging from junior high to the present day. In doing so, Committee investigators did not find any information to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s claims. On the contrary, they received substantial information calling into question her credibility. Based on this and public reports, it appears Ms. Swetnick has a history of making false legal claims and false accusations of sexual misconduct.


The letter plus attachments is 29 pages long. One has to read all of it to understand the depth and thoroughness of the investigations, and the obvious incredibility of Swetnick and others. It was followed the next day, as I also linked, by another letter laying out more possibly perjurious conduct by Avenatti in "twisting the words" of his clients in declarations.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11196
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/18 5:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
You can do a better job of researching the complex national drinking laws of 36 years ago than Wikipedia if you think it's relevant to today, and the history of the Clarence nomination, if you're so motivated. I've already done it -- including rewatching Thomas's entire hearing -- and don't think it's worth discussing.

On one other point, the SJC is the Senate Judiciary Committee, which processes judicial nominations. For purposes of Kavanaugh's nomination they had their own specially enlarged team of investigators, comprised of lawyers and ex-law enforcement, who were ceaselessly investigating every lead and accusation against Kavanaugh. Just log onto the SJC timeline pages to see all the recorded activity.

As to your question on this:

tfan wrote:
Quote:
In addition, the SJC investigators interviewed 45 high school and college friends of Kavanaugh, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and found no evidence to support any of the accusations against Kavanaugh.


What is your source for saying that "SCJ investigators" (don't know who they are) interviewed friends of Ramirez, Ford, and Swetnick? All three came late in the came, and Swetnick came very late.


My source is the letter from Senator Grassley to Sessions and Wray that I linked above, which says:

Quote:
During the course of the Committee’s investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Committee investigators spoke with 45 individuals, obtained 25 written statements, and reviewed numerous other materials. This included speaking with ten associates of Ms. Swetnick who knew her at various times in her life ranging from junior high to the present day. In doing so, Committee investigators did not find any information to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s claims. On the contrary, they received substantial information calling into question her credibility. Based on this and public reports, it appears Ms. Swetnick has a history of making false legal claims and false accusations of sexual misconduct.


The letter plus attachments is 29 pages long. One has to read all of it to understand the depth and thoroughness of the investigations, and the obvious incredibility of Swetnick and others. It was followed the next day, as I also linked, by another letter laying out more possibly perjurious conduct by Avenatti in "twisting the words" of his clients in declarations.


None of this changes the fact that Brett Kavanaugh lied. Under Oath. To procure a seat on The Supreme Court.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 393



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/30/18 3:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bush 41 got derided back-in-the-day, as being a wimp.

He had the guts to call for a legit FBI investigation. Trump did not.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/18 3:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
You can do a better job of researching the complex national drinking laws of 36 years ago than Wikipedia if you think it's relevant to today, and the history of the Clarence nomination, if you're so motivated. I've already done it.


Where did you go to research the complex drinking laws 36 years ago?

I do think it's relevant and not confirming Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court for that single reason would be a good way to turn budding lawyers who dream of becoming a judge someday, into citizens that study - and follow - the law. I would put a limit on how many traffic and other tickets a judge could get. It seems like not following the law is a bad trait for a judge to have, making them more tolerant of people who don't follow the law.



Ramirez and Ford do have a problem if they told none of their friends of the incidents and witnesses are unable or unwilling to confirm them. Since the Republican Senators wanted corroboration, the whole affair could have been avoided just by asking upfront if there were people that would back up their story and having investigators verify that. The politicians that were first contacted could also have emphasized that - "need corroboration, do you have it?" and made their own verification.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6817



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/18 1:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Five Thirty Eight ended up giving their highest chances yet for the Democrats to win the House on the last day before the election: 87.7% (went to 87.9% at 11:06AM on election day).


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4950



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/18 9:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Murkowski is voting "present" instead of no.

Would this be a good strategy for any dem that is in a re-election this year?

Reason that I'm asking is that Joe Donnelly is in a battle with the low-life Braun. I'm sure that the commercial is already made and just waiting for the video of Donnelly voting no today and will be on air by morning.



CBS just called this for the low-life. They mentioned JD's BK vote as a reason.

Sad



_________________
neverthless she persisted
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin