What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Brett Kavanaugh (3 Viewers)

Would your answer to # 2 be any different if BK was a liberal judge appointed by Barrack Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 7.0%

  • No

    Votes: 212 93.0%
  • Total voters
    228
jon_mx said:
I don't know.  'Showing her affection' is ambiguous and can mean lots of things.  I would call it spin as it is not untrue.  It is a misleading statement which does not fall in the clearly false category nor do I see it as pertinent to anything.  It is a ridculous line of questioning.  
Click to expand...
That wasn’t in response to a line of questioning. 

 
bigbottom said:
That wasn’t in response to a line of questioning. 
Click to expand...
He responded to such questions in regards to questioning as well as in his opening statement.  His opening staement of course is not a direct line of questioning, but still it is a response to questions raised by numerous articles in the media at the time.    

 
jon_mx said:
He responded to such questions in regards to questioning as well as in his opening statement.  His opening staement of course is not a direct line of questioning, but still it is a response to questions raised by numerous articles in the media at the time.    
Click to expand...
Like I said. The quoted testimony was not in response to a line of questioning. It was his affirmative testimony. 

Also, “showing her affection” is obviously a load of crap, as she never knew about the 14 times her name was mentioned until decades later. You are better than this jon.  I don’t mean this as an insult. I’m simply imploring you not to argue a ridiculous point simply for the sake of maintaining your position in some pointless internet pissing match. Everyone knows that statement was a load of horse####, yourself included. It’s okay to acknowledge it.

 
bigbottom said:
Like I said. The quoted testimony was not in response to a line of questioning. It was his affirmative testimony. 

Also, “showing her affection” is obviously a load of crap, as she never knew about the 14 times her name was mentioned until decades later. You are better than this jon.  I don’t mean this as an insult. I’m simply imploring you not to argue a ridiculous point simply for the sake of maintaining your position in some pointless internet pissing match. Everyone knows that statement was a load of horse####, yourself included. It’s okay to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Believing it is a line of crap and whether it meets the legal critieria for purjury are two different things.  Where you draw the line for impeachment is probably at the later.  

 
jon_mx said:
 whether it meets the legal critieria for perjury are two different things.  
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing jon: when we’re talking about a candidate for the highest court in the land, I don’t want to be making distinctions of this sort. I want these men and women to be pristine in their integrity. Full stop. 

 
timschochet said:
Here’s the thing jon: when we’re talking about a candidate for the highest court in the land, I don’t want to be making distinctions of this sort. I want these men and women to be pristine in their integrity. Full stop. 
Click to expand...
For me, they don't have to be pristine but they DO have to be self aware enough that they get the issue people might have with their actions, reflect upon it and own it.  Acknowledge it, apologize and move on.

 
The Commish said:
For me, they don't have to be pristine but they DO have to be self aware enough that they get the issue people might have with their actions, reflect upon it and own it.  Acknowledge it, apologize and move on.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to write pristine in their behavior, but pristine in their integrity. Which is basically the same as what you’re saying. 

My point is that, if we’re ever arguing about whether what a candidate for the Supreme Court says is actually perjury by its legal definition or falls a little short of that, it’s already too late, at least for me. 

 
timschochet said:
I didn’t mean to write pristine in their behavior, but pristine in their integrity. Which is basically the same as what you’re saying. 

My point is that, if we’re ever arguing about whether what a candidate for the Supreme Court says is actually perjury by its legal definition or falls a little short of that, it’s already too late, at least for me. 
Click to expand...
Sorry...misunderstood.  I agree.  If we're at the "what's the definition of 'is' " portion of the program or our rebuttals are "it's not technically illegal" in nature, we're failing miserably ESPECIALLY in the cases where we're not even in a court of law :lol:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao:

13 year old me would have known with absolute certainty that he was lying under oath.  You might say the things he was lying about don't impact his ability to do the job, but there's no question he found it acceptable to lie under oath.  

 
timschochet said:
Here’s the thing jon: when we’re talking about a candidate for the highest court in the land, I don’t want to be making distinctions of this sort. I want these men and women to be pristine in their integrity. Full stop. 
Click to expand...
I don't need my Supreme Court Justices to rise to the level of Caesar's wife, but very nearly so.  I want intellectual honesty and fearlessness and moral courage.  I want mature restraint and a passion for constitutional justice.    I want an example of the highest aspirations and qualities of an honorable profession, not a bitter partisan hack who will dissemble and prevaricate because his feelings have been hurt.

 
One thing is for sure, not one of us knows if Kavanaugh lied under oath.  Therefore, with our justice system, he is rightfully given the benefit of the doubt.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
One thing is for sure, not one of us knows if Kavanaugh lied under oath.  Therefore, with our justice system, he is rightfully given the benefit of the doubt.  
Click to expand...
Let's say that because 99.99999999999999999999999% <> 100% and thus the bold is true.  You'd have a point if we were talking about a court of law.  We aren't talking about a court of law.  This was a confirmation hearing.

 
The Commish said:
Let's say that because 99.99999999999999999999999% <> 100% and thus the bold is true.  You'd have a point if we were talking about a court of law.  We aren't talking about a court of law.  This was a confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...
You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

 
jon_mx said:
Believing it is a line of crap and whether it meets the legal critieria for purjury are two different things.  Where you draw the line for impeachment is probably at the later.  
Click to expand...
So... you do at least believe it was a load of crap?

 
Don't Noonan said:
You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.
Click to expand...
There was exactly ZERO the Dems could do to stop the confirmation...absolutely NOTHING they could do.

And this "argument" does nothing to validate your previous comment attempting to apply a legal standard to something not going through the legal process....nice deflection, but nothing more :shrug:  

 
Don't Noonan said:
Common sense
Click to expand...
Common sense? It's your position that the presumption of innocence applies to everyday life situations and that people really follow that? 

If so, can I safely assume that you don't think the Clintons have done anything wrong because it has never been proven that they have in a court of law where the presumption of innocence applies and the burden of proof is something greater than 50%? 

 
Zow said:
Common sense? It's your position that the presumption of innocence applies to everyday life situations and that people really follow that? 

If so, can I safely assume that you don't think the Clintons have done anything wrong because it has never been proven that they have in a court of law where the presumption of innocence applies and the burden of proof is something greater than 50%? 
Click to expand...


Regardless of what Noonan says, I still believe OJ did it.

 
Zow said:
Common sense? It's your position that the presumption of innocence applies to everyday life situations and that people really follow that? 

If so, can I safely assume that you don't think the Clintons have done anything wrong because it has never been proven that they have in a court of law where the presumption of innocence applies and the burden of proof is something greater than 50%? 
Click to expand...
Horrible analogy, Clintons have both been proven to do things wrong

 
Don't Noonan said:
Are you admitting this was the Dems attempt at payback?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it was, but it's not an assertion I'd disagree with.  I don't like how the whole Ford situation was handled by either party. Personally, if I was on the Senate I would have voted against Kavanaugh not for the Ford claim but instead for his demeanor and lack of decorum during the proceedings (as bigbottom pointed out above).  

Can you please answer my question now?

 
Don't Noonan said:
I am with you on OJ.   :hifive:
Click to expand...
Oh.

So this was just something fun to write but you don't really believe it?

"One thing is for sure, not one of us knows if Kavanaugh lied under oath.  Therefore, with our justice system, he is rightfully given the benefit of the doubt."

 
whoknew said:
Regardless of what Noonan says, I still believe OJ did it.
Click to expand...
So do I. But, I also still think the jury's verdict (in both cases) correctly apply the particular burdens of proof to the facts presented at each trial. 

 
whoknew said:
Oh.

So this was just something fun to write but you don't really believe it?

"One thing is for sure, not one of us knows if Kavanaugh lied under oath.  Therefore, with our justice system, he is rightfully given the benefit of the doubt."
Click to expand...
He also just applied a different standard to the Clintons...

 
Zow said:
So do I. But, I also still think the jury's verdict (in both cases) correctly apply the particular burdens of proof to the facts presented at each trial. 
Click to expand...
I hear you.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

 
Zow said:
So... you do at least believe it was a load of crap?
Click to expand...
I think he was spinning it the best way he could to protect her.  It was 35 years ago and I am sure he had some rationalization in his mind to word it the way he did where he did not believe it to be a lie.  I would classify it as deceptful spin which would fall into the load of crap category.  

 
whoknew said:
I hear you.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
Click to expand...
Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant...

 
Zow said:
In court? Link? 
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton lied under oath.  Hillary Clinton knowingly violated Federal Law when creating her private server.  Are those not good enough for you?   :lmao:

No, no, no, Kavanaughs demeaner at the hearings when being unfairly publicly attacked is far worse according to you.   :doh:

 
jon_mx said:
I think he was spinning it the best way he could to protect her.  It was 35 years ago and I am sure he had some rationalization in his mind to word it the way he did where he did not believe it to be a lie.  I would classify it as deceptful spin which would fall into the load of crap category.  
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean deceitful spin, lawyers have been sanctioned for much less. Which, again, is enough for me, as a lawyer who strictly adheres to our rules of ethics, to find him unfit to sit on our highest court. I would, however, based on what I viewed from that hearing, not convict him if I were sitting on a jury in a criminal case where he was accused of sexual assault and I needed to be firmly convinced of his guilt. 

ETA: I just re-read your first sentence again and you genuinely think he was admirably trying to protect her??

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant...
Click to expand...
I'm just joking. I watched the documentary on OJ and the dramatic show on FX or whatever. And based on what was presented there, I would have likely voted not guilty also.

Not a great job by Marcia and Chris.

Of course, this is WAY off topic.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Bill Clinton lied under oath.  Hillary Clinton knowingly violated Federal Law when creating her private server.  Are those not good enough for you?   :lmao:

No, no, no, Kavanaughs demeaner at the hearings when being unfairly publicly attacked is far worse according to you.   :doh:
Click to expand...
You're conflating a myriad of legal standards, burdens of proof, and types of proceedings. 

Neither Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton have been convicted of a crime. Per your standard, if I understand it correctly, the presumption of innocence should then still apply to both. 

I also did not say that Kavanaugh or the Clintons were worse. I would not vote to confirm Bill or Hillary to the Supreme Court, either. 

Can you please answer my question regarding McConnell blocking Garland?

 
Don't Noonan said:
Bill Clinton lied under oath.  Hillary Clinton knowingly violated Federal Law when creating her private server.  Are those not good enough for you?   :lmao:
Click to expand...
Those aren't good enough for YOU if this is what you genuinely believe.

Don't Noonan said:
One thing is for sure, not one of us knows if Kavanaugh lied under oath.  Therefore, with our justice system, he is rightfully given the benefit of the doubt.  
Click to expand...

 
whoknew said:
I'm just joking. I watched the documentary on OJ and the dramatic show on FX or whatever. And based on what was presented there, I would have likely voted not guilty also.

Not a great job by Marcia and Chris.

Of course, this is WAY off topic.
Click to expand...
No doubt. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?
Click to expand...
While both were technically lawful, I see them as distasteful tactics contrary to the spirit of the rules done solely for partisan gain. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sabertooth
FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
3K
shadrap
shadrap
E
  • Poll
Liberals of the PSF - tell us a little about yourselves
2 3
Replies
107
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top