Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

244 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

the kavanaugh battle was lost long ago and is now merely another distraction from the only story that matters, the fact that a traitor inhabits the white house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, snitwitch said:

the kavanaugh battle was lost long ago and is now merely another distraction from the only story that matters, the fact that a traitor inhabits the white house

Yeah, at this point the discussion is moot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just reading this paragraph, you're telling me this one man has been associated with all of the things underlined?

Look at what you have there, and you still haven't covered the allegations about him.

There's Mike Judge's book too.

Really?  That is just a slow weekend for the Clintons or Trump.  The only concern on that list is one really shakey allegation of sexual assault that has absolutely zero collabortation from over three decades ago.   If that is the best they have, Kavanaugh is a saint.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bigbottom said:

 

You can’t possibly believe that a bunch of high school boys publish in their yearbook entries that they are “alumni” of a girl or part of the “Renate Club” or the “Renate Suicide Squad”, including one who wrote a poem about calling Renate if it’s getting late and you need a date, did so as a means of “showing her affection” and “that she was one of us,” particularly when other classmates confirmed that the boys boasted of conquests with her and knew exactly what the entries were about, and she never even knew about the 14 separate times her name was mentioned in the yearbook. If it was meant to show her affection and that she was one of them, why would not a single one of them ever have mentioned it to her?  That statement by Kavanaugh is so obviously a load of horse####, that I am truly hoping that you don’t try to argue that he could have been testifying truthfully lest I lose the great deal of respect that I have for you (which i do).

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 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.  

That wasn’t in response to a line of questioning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

That wasn’t in response to a line of questioning. 

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.    

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.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a while to get to the whataboutisms but we finally got there.  Think we can shut this bad boy down :thumbup: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  

:bigbottom presents really convincing argument that he absolutely lied:

14 minutes ago, 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.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

 'Showing her affection' is ambiguous and can mean lots of things. 

I have to remember to use this line in my personal life.

A lot better than a swimming waitress taking orders for the family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

 whether it meets the legal critieria for perjury are two different things.  

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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. 

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: 

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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.  

You are thinking of a criminal court. Common mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.  

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.  

So... you do at least believe it was a load of crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

Did you support McConnell blocking Garland?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

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: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Common sense

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%? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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%? 

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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%? 

Horrible analogy, Clintons have both been proven to do things wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Are you admitting this was the Dems attempt at payback?

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Horrible analogy, Clintons have both been proven to do things wrong

In court? Link? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

I am with you on OJ.  :hifive:

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."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

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

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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."

 

 

He also just applied a different standard to the Clintons...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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. 

I hear you.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zow said:

So... you do at least believe it was a load of crap?

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whoknew said:

I hear you.

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

Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zow said:

In court? Link? 

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 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.  

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??

Edited by Zow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zow said:

Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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:

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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:

Those aren't good enough for YOU if this is what you genuinely believe.

19 minutes ago, 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.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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.

No doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Yes

Why? Or, in other words, how is that different from what the democrats did with Kavanaugh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zow said:

Why? Or, in other words, how is that different from what the democrats did with Kavanaugh? 

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.