What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Wisko McBadgerton said:
I believe they asked for the charts and any video or audio on the polygraph. The polygrapher's report on the two questions has been in evidence for some time. The committee released a letter and 3 emails to Ford's lawyers, and also note Grassely's tweets and statements in reference to the offer made to go to CA to interview Ford.

So I looked into the thing with Berchem and these texts a bit. The SJC received Berchem's statement and summary last Friday, and the FBI also received it last Friday, before the NBC News story was released on this last Monday.

The NBC story spawned many other stories that are in the headlines still. I'd note that NBC misquotes Kavanaugh, mis-attributes other's quotes to him, uses inaccurate quotes and switches their context, and then based on these things, implies Kavanaugh committed a crime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but I know the quotes are ****ed, because I looked up every quote in the original source material. Reporters used to do that for you. Regardless if K is the biggest criminal in DC or not, the inaccuracies in that story are just depressing.
Click to expand...

So Grassley, the senile old coot who lied repeatedly during the committee hearing? Forgive me if I don't take his tweets and statements as gospel.


And, some examples of the Kavanaugh misquotes would be nice.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So clearly K was aware of the wedding before being asked about it by SJC staff. The transcript of that is available.
Click to expand...


Asked by staff. As in, private interviews, not the committee hearing. See, news reporters can read transcripts too.


Here's a direct copy/paste from his opening statement transcript: All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.
Click to expand...

And during later parts of his testimony, he said those four witnesses, quote, "refuted, REFUTED!!" Blasey Ford's testimony. Not just once, but several times.


Got any other Kavanaugh "misquotes" you'd care to share?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

rufus said:
Asked by staff. As in, private interviews, not the committee hearing. See, news reporters can read transcripts too.






And during later parts of his testimony, he said those four witnesses, Blasey Ford's testimony. Not just once, but several times.


Got any other Kavanaugh "misquotes" you'd care to share?
Click to expand...

The article literally says." In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25" which is exactly the transcript I quote from correctly and they do so incorrectly.


Sure, there's more in the same article but I'll start with yours as it's so handy. I'm too short on time at the moment to look it up, but I'm really very certain Kavanaugh, never said quote, "refuted, REFUTED!!" during his testimony. The transcripts are online, if you care to find it. Otherwise I'll double check later. I'm also not sure that Kavanaugh isn't using the word refuted, in the legal sense, correctly when he does.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So apparently, there have been issues with either alcohol or sexual assault contained in Kavanaugh's previous background checks.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Jesus arent some of these Republicans lawyers? (I know Graham is) What the heck are they doing? Once again dont make any statements you cant back up or can be impeached. The mere appearance of impropriety casts a shadow of doubt on everything. You just caught a deep pass and are about to score the game winning TD how about you not spike the ball until you cross the goal line.

I swear to god, if i didnt know better I would swear they are trying to tank this.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Handyman said:
I swear to god, if i didnt know better I would swear they are trying to tank this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are. Maybe they don't want Kavanaugh and are just trying to make it look like the Dems are doing it to fire up the base for the midterms...

Nothing out of the capital surprises me anymore.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

According to Klobuchar...McConnell has started the clock on voting and they have yet to see an FBI report
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

First Time said:
According to Klobuchar...McConnell has started the clock on voting and they have yet to see an FBI report
Click to expand...

What the heck? So his possible swing votes like Collins are under siege it seems and he puts them under the limelight 2 days earlier than planned?

If he ends up calling for the vote before the report comes in Flake is a for sure no he has already said as much. I dont see any way Collins votes yes either...

This makes no sense...this isnt good strategy this is just stupid. This is what you do when you fear what will come out if you wait.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

rufus said:
And during later parts of his testimony, he said those four witnesses, quote, "refuted, REFUTED!!" Blasey Ford's testimony. Not just once, but several times.
Click to expand...

I said I'd check so I did. The word refuted is used by Kavanaugh four times in his entire testimony. Never twice in a row or in the same sentence and never after his opening statement. Perhaps you're quoting Matt Damon.

But since I'm here and people talk about this subject:

Keyzer said that she never met K, she doesn't know him, and was never at a party with him. That refutes Ford's claim specifically.

Judge says he never saw K do what Ford says he did, nor does he believe K ever would do such a thing. That refutes Ford's claim specifically.

PJ says he doesn't recall ever being at such a party and continues on with "I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women." That refutes Ford's claim generally.

Obviously K himself refutes Ford's claim. That's all 4 people alleged to be at the party. I realize people will disagree with Judge or PJ especially, as to whether they "refute" the claim. I'm sure K would argue that their evidence does go toward refuting Ford's claim and he is allowed to make that argument on his own behalf whether it's in the court room or in the Senate. Or he would argue something much smarter, as whatever else he is, he is apparently a pretty good lawyer.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Wisko McBadgerton said:
I said I'd check so I did. The word refuted is used by Kavanaugh four times in his entire testimony. Never twice in a row or in the same sentence and never after his opening statement. Perhaps you're quoting Matt Damon.

But since I'm here and people talk about this subject:

Keyzer said that she never met K, she doesn't know him, and was never at a party with him. That refutes Ford's claim specifically.
Click to expand...

Except you conveniently leave out where she said she also believes Ford's account. She just said she doesnt remember being at a party with Kavanaugh. Not the same thing at all.

"However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account." (quote from CBS News)

You can get as semantical as you want to, the witnesses didnt say what he said they did. None of the witnesses exonerated him as he implied, all they did was say they dont remember. All of them were smarter than he was because none of them spoke in absolutes in case they were wrong. (or have to change their story later) Sure if this was a trial it wouldnt be enough to convict him but none of us are saying otherwise. He is the one touting it like it is the smoking gun proving his innocence. It does nothing of the kind.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Ben Sasse said he urged Trump to nominate someone else...then voted to move the nomination forward. That guy is a two faced clown.

Apparently Soros and the Clintons are spreading the money around:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brett Kavanaugh's Yale roommate tells <a href="https://twitter.com/andersoncooper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@andersoncooper</a> that when he heard his Senate testimony he "knew he was lying."<br><br>"When Brett started saying things about his drinking and his use of certain words, sexually-oriented words, I knew he was lying because he was my roommate." <a href="https://t.co/DlRddK2uq4">pic.twitter.com/DlRddK2uq4</a></p>— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) <a href="https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1047643688887705600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hundreds of law professors have signed a letter urging the Senate to reject Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation. <a href="https://t.co/Qi6hXmyDrq">https://t.co/Qi6hXmyDrq</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1047651897421783041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">650+ law professors (and counting) believe Brett Kavanaugh lacks the judicial temperament to be approved to the Supreme Court. Read their letter explaining why. <a href="https://t.co/LYp4E69I14">https://t.co/LYp4E69I14</a></p>— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1047612028515491840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What would they all know though?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Professors, pffft. Who listens to those flaming l1btard pansies. :p
Click to expand...

How about one who teaches at seminary? He should be Xtian enough right?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Seminary professor steps forward to say he was Yale student who knew said Kavanaugh pushed his ***** in classmate's face: “I can corroborate Debbie’s account..I believe her, because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago." <a href="https://t.co/7HJwShF3uT">https://t.co/7HJwShF3uT</a></p>— Carol Leonnig (@CarolLeonnig) <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1047686810699276299?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nope just another (((globalist))) I guess :p
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Statement from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers: “those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth." <a href="https://t.co/td4IRchdTa">pic.twitter.com/td4IRchdTa</a></p>— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1047690004187811840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Such a joke.
The Blue Wave needs to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top