Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: Mission146That’s probably fair, but I think the overall point that there’s not enough evidence so far that this would ever see a criminal trial holds...that’s if the statute of limitations weren’t already up, of course.
Of course there’s not enough evidence that a crime was committed. That’s not what this is about. This is about whether or not he should be on the Supreme Court. I think his attitude during the questioning is enough to disqualify him.
Quote: Mission146That’s probably fair, but I think the overall point that there’s not enough evidence so far that this would ever see a criminal trial holds...that’s if the statute of limitations weren’t already up, of course.
The problem with her conclusions is this:
Would a prosecutor who:
A) questions the accuser for 4 hours, then leaves after one question to the accused (essentially not interviewing the accused
B) conducts her case BEFORE any police or law enforcement investigation occurs
C) without interviewing other people involved and simply accept blanket statements about the incident
Ever come to a conclusion about a case
Remove the politics
Lets say you actually know someone who says they were raped and they were questioned for hours by the prosecutor. Then the prosecutor asks the rapists one or or two questions and nothing else. And say there is no need for evidence collection talking to other witnesses or having law enforcement involved. Would you feel your friend hadnt been railroaded?
Quote: Mission146But, he’s not, and nor is anyone else.
If unprovable claims were not sufficient to perhaps keep him off the SCOTUS, and they should not be sufficient, then Thursday’s hearing never happens in the first place.
Just show me a Democrat willing to come out and at least admit that her accusations can’t be proven. You won’t see it happen. It’s all, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
What you believe doesn’t matter. It’s what you can prove that should matter. That’s why we have a proper criminal process for crimes.
It's not a criminal investigation, it is a background check. Different standards apply, just as there is a difference between civil and criminal cases.
Quote: FinsRuleOf course there’s not enough evidence that a crime was committed. That’s not what this is about. This is about whether or not he should be on the Supreme Court. I think his attitude during the questioning is enough to disqualify him.
I agree with this 1000000%
Let's assume Ford is a despicable liar, and she was trying to frame Kavanaugh.
Let's assume Kavanaugh was a perfect little angel in high school and is completely innocent.
As I said before, he completely cracked under pressure and acted panicky and emotionally unstable. Furthermore, from what I've read after the fact (I admittedly didn't watch much of the testimony while it was happening), he either avoided answering many questions or gave long-winded irrelevant responses.
I don't want that person sitting on the Supreme Court.
Quote: FinsRuleOf course there’s not enough evidence that a crime was committed. That’s not what this is about. This is about whether or not he should be on the Supreme Court. I think his attitude during the questioning is enough to disqualify him.
I have no issue with that. I think the fact that he identifies with ANY political party (not just Republicans) in anyway whatsoever, much less being employed directly under a Republican President, should be enough to disqualify him (or anyone else) on the grounds that he cannot be taken for granted as being politically impartial. There is a reasonable suspicion that he will, "Legislate from the bench," which is a reasonable suspicion with just about anyone, which is the only reason why anybody cares who is nominated and who is not.
Quote: TigerWu
Let's assume Ford is a despicable liar, and she was trying to frame Kavanaugh.
Let's assume Kavanaugh was a perfect little angel in high school and is completely innocent.
Going with your assumptions, how would YOU react in the exact same circumstances?
How would you react if your wife and children were getting death threats? How would you react if your name was being smeared all over the internet and the news (knowing that you were innocent)?
Would you be a sheep or a lion? Would you fight back?
In this forums I see many people get angry for insignificant events. Posters insulting each other. People get pissed off because their "comps" have been reduced. People scream holy hell because a dealer makes a mistake and that the casinos cheat, I could go on and on.
Just sit back and reflect how you would feel.
Quote: FleaswatterGoing with your assumptions, how would YOU react in the exact same circumstances?
I would testify that I don't drink
I would testify that my college roommate will confirm that fact
I would testify that I have never blacked out because I consider alcohol a hard drug
Quote: FleaswatterGoing with your assumptions, how would YOU react in the exact same circumstances?
If I was a federal judge being nominated for a Supreme Court position and testifying before a Senate subcommittee, I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal.
Quote:How would you react if your wife and children were getting death threats? How would you react if your name was being smeared all over the internet and the news (knowing that you were innocent)?
Would you be a sheep or a lion? Would you fight back?
A Senate hearing is not the time or the place to be "fighting back" against online trolls or the "liberal media" and going on emotional rants. All of that can and should be handled outside of the workplace, in a courtroom if necessary, especially when death threats are involved.
That one way is for Cavanaugh 2 come out and say he is now a liberal. At that point, the night in question we'll never have happened in history, or would it have?
Quote: TigerWuIf I was a federal judge being nominated for a Supreme Court position and testifying before a Senate subcommittee, I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal.
A Senate hearing is not the time or the place to be "fighting back" against online trolls or the "liberal media" and going on emotional rants. All of that can and should be handled outside of the workplace, in a courtroom if necessary, especially when death threats are involved.
If If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
Quote: FleaswatterIf If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
I posted already
I would be totally honest and say that I don't drink and therefore have never blacked out and have an excellent memory
Quote: terapinedI posted already
I would be totally honest and say that I don't drink and therefore have never blacked out and have an excellent memory
I didn't know we had so many robots on this forum.
If it were me and I was innocent, the way he handled it would be perceived as calm compared to what I would have done. I do not take character assassination lightly, amplify it to the magnitude he went through...I can only imagine the explosion building in my mind.
Quote: FleaswatterIf If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
???
Did you miss the part where I answered your question?
"....I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
How much more straightforward can I get?
Quote: FleaswatterIf If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
I certainly wouldn’t have blamed the Clinton’s.
Quote: TigerWu???
Did you miss the part where I answered your question?
"....I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
How much more straightforward can I get?
You could get more straightforward by providing your actual quote, which is:
"....I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
emphasis is mine
Saying that you "HOPE" does not answer how you, today, would respond/react.
Quote: FleaswatterYou could get more straightforward by providing your actual quote, which is:
"....I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
emphasis is mine
Saying that you "HOPE" does not answer how you, today, would respond/react.
Okay, so you're giving me two contradictory scenarios, one of which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
You're asking me to put myself in Kavanaugh's shoes, and you're also asking me how I, TigerWu, would react.
If I was Kavanaugh, see my above answer.
If I, TigerWu, a nobody in Oklahoma, was picked up from my irrelevant, low-paying job and dropped in the middle of a Senate investigation, I have no idea how I would react. I'd probably be nervous as s***.
But like I said, even if I, TigerWu, broke down in big blubbery tears, that is completely and utterly irrelevant because I am nowhere remotely involved with anything in law, let alone on a federal level, let alone on a Supreme Court level. I am not that professional. I am not that dignified. I am not that respectable. Kavanaugh should be. Any federal judge and Supreme Court nominee should be.
Kavanaugh acted unprofessionally, period. It doesn't matter what I would do, right now. It matters what Kavanaugh would do. And in my opinion, he failed that test.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: FleaswatterYou could get more straightforward by providing your actual quote, which is:
"....I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
emphasis is mine
Saying that you "HOPE" does not answer how you, today, would respond/react.
Okay, so you're giving me two contradictory scenarios, one of which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
You're asking me to put myself in Kavanaugh's shoes, and you're also asking me how I, TigerWu, would react.
If I was Kavanaugh, see my above answer.
If I, TigerWu, a nobody in Oklahoma, was picked up from my irrelevant, low-paying job and dropped in the middle of a Senate investigation, I have no idea how I would react. I'd probably be nervous as s***.
But like I said, even if I, TigerWu, broke down in big blubbery tears, that is completely and utterly irrelevant because I am nowhere remotely involved with anything in law, let alone on a federal level, let alone on a Supreme Court level. I am not that professional. I am not that dignified. I am not that respectable. Kavanaugh should be. Any federal judge and Supreme Court nominee should be.
Kavanaugh acted unprofessionally, period. It doesn't matter what I would do, right now. It matters what Kavanaugh would do. And in my opinion, he failed that test.
All I can say is, YAWN
Quote: darkozThe problem with her conclusions is this:
Would a prosecutor who:
A) questions the accuser for 4 hours, then leaves after one question to the accused (essentially not interviewing the accused
B) conducts her case BEFORE any police or law enforcement investigation occurs
C) without interviewing other people involved and simply accept blanket statements about the incident
Ever come to a conclusion about a case
Yes.
A.) The first thing that a prosecutor does is determine whether or not he/she thinks there is enough behind a case to bring charges. If you think that the accuser's claims, in and of themselves, would not be sufficient to bring criminal charges, then you're not even going to bother talking with the accused, unless you think you'll get an outright admission.
B.) No police investigation has occurred because, at least as of Thursday, no criminal charges had ever been filed as relates the incident. No criminal charges = No police investigation, that's not terribly difficult to understand.
C.) Interview them for what? If her assertion is that there's insufficient reason to bring a criminal case just based on what Blasey Ford said then what does she need to interview anybody for?
---Also, what you're saying that the prosecutor should be doing is what the police department usually does for them and then they decide whether or not the investigators have brought forth sufficient evidence for a case. In this case, the statute of limitations is up and it was thirty years ago, so you're not going to have material (physical) proof of any kind that exists. She also doesn't have a specific date or a place, at all, so how would you even go about investigating that.
What it sounds like to me is the prosecutor thinks this sort of thing in a court might not even survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is a mechanism in which the judge has to look at the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IOW, taking Blasey Ford 100% at her word, the prosecutor still thinks she wouldn't have enough.
Quote:Remove the politics
Lets say you actually know someone who says they were raped and they were questioned for hours by the prosecutor. Then the prosecutor asks the rapists one or or two questions and nothing else. And say there is no need for evidence collection talking to other witnesses or having law enforcement involved. Would you feel your friend hadnt been railroaded?
I've already removed the politics. If you want to talk the politics, I'm on your side. To me, facing consequences based on an unprovable accusation is not a political issue in any way.
Anyway, in your example, I would say that would be railroaded if the crime had any hope of being proven or had happened recently. This was over thirty years ago, we're well past the point that anything can be proven.
Quote: Fleaswatter
All I can say is, YAWN
Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk.
Quote: billryanIt's not a criminal investigation, it is a background check. Different standards apply, just as there is a difference between civil and criminal cases.
If you were to deny me a job based on an unprovable accusation against me for which no criminal complaint was ever filed, and then actually tell me you were denying me the job for that reason, I would sue you and probably win. (The key is whoever is doing the hiring would generally not say that is why they are denying the person, obviously)
Quote: TigerWuSorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk.
Hmmmm, personal insult??
Quote: terapinedI would testify that I don't drink
I would testify that my college roommate will confirm that fact
I would testify that I have never blacked out because I consider alcohol a hard drug
So, drinking in and of itself should be enough to disqualify someone from being on the SCOTUS? Good luck with that.
Also, your college roommate can't confirm you don't drink, he can only confirm that he never saw you drink. I'm glad you think that would be sufficient to prove your innocence. Judge would testify, if he had to, that Blasey Ford's accusation never happened...and that's insufficient.
Quote: TigerWuIf I was a federal judge being nominated for a Supreme Court position and testifying before a Senate subcommittee, I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal.
Blah. If he wasn't emotional, some Democrats would be griping about how wooden and, "Rehearsed," he was. You know it and I know it. Your denial of that statement in 3...2...1...
Quote:A Senate hearing is not the time or the place to be "fighting back" against online trolls or the "liberal media" and going on emotional rants. All of that can and should be handled outside of the workplace, in a courtroom if necessary, especially when death threats are involved.
Again, if he hadn't come off emotional, they'd be calling him over-rehearsed and not credible. They would say, "Don't you think that a normal person would evoke some sort of emotion if they were being genuine in challenging such horrible allegations?"
It's honestly an unwinnable position. If the opposition is biased enough, they're going to chastise anything that you do. If your supporters are biased enough, they are going to support anything that you do.
I figure some 80% of those paying attention had already made their decision before a word was uttered by either party, and regardless of what specifically happened during the testimony, the testimony would only serve to reinforce the opinions that they already had.
Quote: Mission146Blah. If he wasn't emotional, some Democrats would be griping about how wooden and, "Rehearsed," he was. You know it and I know it. Your denial of that statement in 3...2...1...
I don't doubt it. I'm not a Democratic politician, though, and I don't care what they think. I'm only speaking for myself.
Quote:It's honestly an unwinnable position.
I agree. I think Kavanaugh is screwed in one way or another, no matter what happens.
What I DO think is that his attitude during his testimony hurt him more than it helped. That's all I'm saying, and it's just my opinion.
Quote: AxelWolfI hope the people(BBB, BillRyan) who believe Christine Blasey Ford's allegations read this entire report.Quote: TankoThis is Ruth Mitchell’s analysis of Ford’s testimony: Memo
“But this case is weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."
Damning analysis. Too bad she never got to question Kavanaugh.
After reading it, I'm100% convinced she is nothing but a BIG FAT LIAR AND A FAKE. I just wish she could be prosecuted for purposely making faults allegations.
The Safeway she claimed to see Judge at in 1982 didn't even exist until 1986....lol
Quote: Mission146If you were to deny me a job based on an unprovable accusation against me for which no criminal complaint was ever filed, and then actually tell me you were denying me the job for that reason, I would sue you and probably win. (The key is whoever is doing the hiring would generally not say that is why they are denying the person, obviously)
What makes you think you would win?
Just like businesses can choose who they wish to serve (a point much discussed here) businesses can also choose who they wish to hire
To my knowledge only protected classes may sue for bad hiring practices. Making a hiring decision based on someones misleading or false information is not a protected class
In fact that could open up a whole can of worms. Imagine an employer saying you werent hired because they contacted your last employer who said you were late to work everyday
Then you show your time sheets proving that a false statement. So now you sue the company that didnt hire you?
FYI - When I was trying to get my Dark Oz film made a competitor was dealing with another studio and I was certain he had stolen some of my material.
I wanted to contact the studio
My attorney warned me that if I did and the studio dropped this other persons project he could sue ME for making him lose the contract if I could not definitely prove my accusations
I believe in your hiring scenario you have described you may have cause for defamation or libel against the person who alerted the hiring company about these false allegations but you have no legal recourse against the company itself
Quote: FleaswatterGoing with your assumptions, how would YOU react in the exact same circumstances?
How would you react if your wife and children were getting death threats? How would you react if your name was being smeared all over the internet and the news (knowing that you were innocent)?
Would you be a sheep or a lion? Would you fight back?
In this forums I see many people get angry for insignificant events. Posters insulting each other. People get pissed off because their "comps" have been reduced. People scream holy hell because a dealer makes a mistake and that the casinos cheat, I could go on and on.
Just sit back and reflect how you would feel.
Most advice from attorneys is do not get belligerent anf keep your calm. Make it seem like these accusations dont ruffle you because you know they are baseless
Losing your temper usually reflects badly
Thats legal advice most attorneys give. Im certain Kavanaugh knows that.
Quote: darkozWhat makes you think you would win?
Just like businesses can choose who they wish to serve (a point much discussed here) businesses can also choose who they wish to hire
To my knowledge only protected classes may sue for bad hiring practices. Making a hiring decision based on someones misleading or false information is not a protected class
In fact that could open up a whole can of worms. Imagine an employer saying you werent hired because they contacted your last employer who said you were late to work everyday
Then you show your time sheets proving that a false statement. So now you sue the company that didnt hire you?
FYI - When I was trying to get my Dark Oz film made a competitor was dealing with another studio and I was certain he had stolen some of my material.
I wanted to contact the studio
My attorney warned me that if I did and the studio dropped this other persons project he could sue ME for making him lose the contract if I could not definitely prove my accusations
I believe in your hiring scenario you have described you may have cause for defamation or libel against the person who alerted the hiring company about these false allegations but you have no legal recourse against the company itself
A company just needs to use a “reasonable person” standard. So if someone applied for a job and then someone else came in with a believable allegation that in our opinion, disqualifies the first person for the job, we do not have to hire that person. But the applicant would definitely not win a lawsuit against us, and would pretty much have to prove that the person with the allegation was lying to have a case against him/her
Quote: MaxPenThe Safeway she claimed to see Judge at in 1982 didn't even exist until 1986....lol
Fake news.
Washington Post, October 12th, 1985
"A proposal to put a new Giant Food store in Montgomery County's prestigious Potomac Village has spawned expansion moves by an existing Safeway store and polarized residents of the community that is known for its resistance to commercial development." (emphasis added)
"Castleberry said the Potomac Village Safeway has 'wanted to expand almost from the time we came in there in 1968." (emphasis added)
Quote: TigerWu
What I DO think is that his attitude during his testimony hurt him more than it helped. That's all I'm saying, and it's just my opinion.
I can agree with that. My opinion is he would have done better to come off as wooden, I'm just saying there would have been people chastising him for that, too.
Quote: FinsRuleA company just needs to use a “reasonable person” standard. So if someone applied for a job and then someone else came in with a believable allegation that in our opinion, disqualifies the first person for the job, we do not have to hire that person. But the applicant would definitely not win a lawsuit against us, and would pretty much have to prove that the person with the allegation was lying to have a case against him/her
I'd love to see it go to court if your idea of a, 'Believable accusation," is something from thirty years in the past with no proof and no criminal complaint ever filed.
Quote: darkozWhat makes you think you would win?
Just like businesses can choose who they wish to serve (a point much discussed here) businesses can also choose who they wish to hire
So, if they were to provide proof that they denied me a job ONLY because of some allegation from thirty years in the past with no proof and no criminal complaint filed, but that they would have otherwise given me the job, that I wouldn't have a lawsuit?
I think it's a moot point only because I don't think any reasonable person would be foolish enough to tell someone that's why they didn't get hired. You would just offer some generic reason instead.
Quote:To my knowledge only protected classes may sue for bad hiring practices. Making a hiring decision based on someones misleading or false information is not a protected class
You might be right. I know that might be right when it comes to hiring, but if you terminated someone based on an unprovable allegation, then they would definitely have something when it comes to wrongful termination. But again, most people, if they did terminate for that reason, wouldn't be stupid enough to say that's why they did it.
Quote:In fact that could open up a whole can of worms. Imagine an employer saying you werent hired because they contacted your last employer who said you were late to work everyday
Then you show your time sheets proving that a false statement. So now you sue the company that didnt hire you?
If you had a lawsuit at all on that one, it would be against the prior employer. There's also a pretty big difference between that and an accusation of a crime from someone who has nothing to do with your prior employment.
Personally, I only ever confirmed dates worked if I didn't have anything positive to say about a person. I even declined to answer eligibility for rehire if I would never hire them again. I think the less you say the better, in that regard, unless you're giving an absolutely glowing review of a person.
Quote:FYI - When I was trying to get my Dark Oz film made a competitor was dealing with another studio and I was certain he had stolen some of my material.
I wanted to contact the studio
My attorney warned me that if I did and the studio dropped this other persons project he could sue ME for making him lose the contract if I could not definitely prove my accusations
That all sounds correct. That's why it should be important to be able to prove one's allegations if one is going to make them outside of the traditional legal channels.
Quote:I believe in your hiring scenario you have described you may have cause for defamation or libel against the person who alerted the hiring company about these false allegations but you have no legal recourse against the company itself
Again, I think a key point might be if the person could absolutely prove they would have been hired but for the reluctance of the would-be employer due to the unsubstantiated allegations.
You guys are probably right, though. It probably wouldn't be the slam dunk that I made it sound like it would be, but I think it would survive a Motion to Dismiss, at a minimum.
Quote: FinsRuleYour first point is incorrect. I’ve specifically told an employee that “we have reason to believe you did x, so we are terminating your employment.” Our attorney instructed us to say it like that, even though we had no concrete proof.
Was it in relation to an alleged crime that predated the employment and didn't involve anyone from the workplace?
Quote: FinsRuleYour first point is incorrect. I’ve specifically told an employee that “we have reason to believe you did x, so we are terminating your employment.” Our attorney instructed us to say it like that, even though we had no concrete proof.
The entire scenario becomes proof ina suit gainst whomever made the accusations
You sue the accuser
You use the termination as proof that the baseless accusations caused you financial harm
Quote: Mission146Was it in relation to an alleged crime that predated the employment and didn't involve anyone from the workplace?
Yes.
Quote: rxwineHow do you act? Observe Clarence Thomas; his demeanor worked for him. I would call it professional with some low level outrage when he called it a high tech lynching. Still never out of control.
Yeah, Kavanaugh should have taken a lesson from this guy:
Clarence Thomas responds to Anita Hill
Quote: FleaswatterIf If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
What are you really asking? Can outside pressures cause me to lie under oath and strike out in anger? I hope not.
When will people start going on television saying they personally witnessed him drunk and out of control but the FBI wouldn't interview him. It's Monday and the FBI hasn't even interviewed Dr. Ford. One story says a potential witness was told to report to an office two hundred miles away to tell his story.
Does anyone want Avenetti and his client telling their unvetted story the night before the vote? He's pretty sleazy but he's been right quite a bit.
Quote: billryan...Does anyone want Avenetti and his client telling their unvetted story the night before the vote? He's pretty sleazy but he's been right quite a bit.
That would probably help Kavanaugh, since it’d show how big of a sham the entire thing is.
Quote: RSThat would probably help Kavanaugh, since it’d show how big of a sham the entire thing is.
Only with republican voters who support rapists for high office
Seems to be a trend these days
The party of Rape
Oh I get it. The R in Republican is for Rape
Quote: darkozOnly with republican voters who support rapists for high office
Seems to be a trend these days
The party of Rape
Oh I get it. The R in Republican is for Rape
Can I nominate Darkoz for official diplomat for the Democratic Party? Keep bridging that divide, brother!
(I know, I'm no better when it comes to the Evangelical Right. I admit it.)
Who's the rapist, though? Are you talking about that dude from Alabama or Kavanaugh? Swetnick is the only one who puts Kavanaugh on rape, and her accusations are laughable, if I'm being especially generous.
Quote: FinsRuleA company just needs to use a “reasonable person” standard. So if someone applied for a job and then someone else came in with a believable allegation that in our opinion, disqualifies the first person for the job, we do not have to hire that person. But the applicant would definitely not win a lawsuit against us, and would pretty much have to prove that the person with the allegation was lying to have a case against him/her
I all job interviews, the burden of persuasion is entirely upon the prospective employee, and the employer can then apply "reasonable person" standard to judge the prospective employee.
Quote: Mission146Can I nominate Darkoz for official diplomat for the Democratic Party? Keep bridging that divide, brother!
(I know, I'm no better when it comes to the Evangelical Right. I admit it.)
Who's the rapist, though? Are you talking about that dude from Alabama or Kavanaugh? Swetnick is the only one who puts Kavanaugh on rape, and her accusations are laughable, if I'm being especially generous.
Maybe the calling everyone a racist act got a little old so they just decided to replace a letter, and see if it works better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh.html
If Kavanaugh applied for a job at FedEX, UPS, Uber or any job that requires driving, then Kavanaugh would have a very tough time to persuade his prospective employees that he is the best candidate due to his past drinking history (Kavanaugh can choose to file a libel lawsuit against Chad Ludington). My guess is Chad Ludington most likely would not have send this letter because of his fear of libel suit.
Now, since Kavanaugh is now being considered for a justice position in the SCOTUS, his past drinking history can be forgiven. But the new issues arises is his lying under oath. Here is an excerpt from Chad Ludington’s letter to the senate:
Quote: Chad Ludington
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.
Quote: TigerWuSorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk.
Personal insult. Three-day suspension.
Quote: Mission146Can I nominate Darkoz for official diplomat for the Democratic Party? Keep bridging that divide, brother!
(I know, I'm no better when it comes to the Evangelical Right. I admit it.)
Who's the rapist, though? Are you talking about that dude from Alabama or Kavanaugh? Swetnick is the only one who puts Kavanaugh on rape, and her accusations are laughable, if I'm being especially generous.
I officially accept the nomination
Looking forward to all my supporters. We will Make America Appear Sane Again
#MAASA
Quote: darkozI officially accept the nomination
Looking forward to all my supporters. We will Make America Appear Sane Again
#MAASA
There is no masking the insanity of the far left or the far right.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThere is no masking the insanity of the far left or the far right.
Perhaps the divide is caused by the righties inability to decipher a joke
Quote: darkozPerhaps the divide is caused by the righties inability to decipher a joke
Its funny you say that, because I was mentioning to a friend today that the reason that SNL skewers conservatives more than liberals is because the left can not take a joke. Loren Michaels has said this many times.
