my mother died in 1979 and I can remember that night 100%. Where I was when I got the call, driving to the hospital, not sleeping more than 1 hour that night, etc.
nm
I think Kavanaugh lied about pretty much everything, but I totally understand why he lied. If people believe he did it, all aspects of his life will change. His profession would be in jeopardy. His marriage might end. His relationship with his children would change. How people would treat his wife and kids would change. Few people would be honest in the same situation. I felt the same about Clinton with Lewinski. In that situation, the best strategy is to lie, and lie forcefully with conviction. In the best outcome, you emerge with no negative consequences. In the worst, you may still lose a lot, but some people would still believe you and you would salvage some part of your life. Since telling the truth means you lose almost everything, you might as well take your chances with lying.
It’s unrealistic to have the expectations that someone will tell the truth in this situation. I know we all wish humans were this noble, but rarely is that the case, and certainly not in politics. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t still try to make things right. He could have withdrawn his nomination for the good of the country to avoid the circus. That allows him to avoid lying about these accusations and provides some justice for what happened.
Do you have a cite? I looked up Jeb Bush supporting Kavanaugh and got some Trump stuff.
For me it’s not even just about the accusations anymore. To my mind the temperament and evasive behavior displayed by Kavanaugh yesterday is in itself disqualifying.
Totally agree. Plus the emotional outbursts and, to me anyway, erratic behavior should pretty much inform those making the decisions that this guy isn’t USSC material. It’s obviously politics, but to me it’s really stupid and shitty politics. I think that if the Pubs push this through on their own it’s going to bite them squarely on the ass sometime in the next few years. Might just be wishful thinking on my part.
Donnelly is a no
Bush for Kavanugh:
He’s also a Democrat, so his vote isn’t relevant.
That Donnelly vote is interesting. There is some reporting that he was expected to vote as a block with Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin.
I tried to email Senator Graham through his web page. It’s “temporarily down due to maintenance” Don’t worry, normal service will return soon.
So, Lindsay, if you’re reading this, fuck off.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m “just talking”, I don’t say the kinds of things you said about me in your post. I know this is a heated discussion, and I’m not holding them those things against you or anything, but go back and read that post and consider how you think I read it.
I think what I said in response to Dinsdale. I think he was being a weaselly lawyer about the drinking age bit. As for the Renate Alumnius thing, I really don’t know. I think it is most likely not because they were such jolly good friends, but I’m not certain it meant “I had sex with her”. But the fact is, I don’t know.
Here’s the thing. If he was lying under oath, then he is liable to be charged with perjury. I don’t think he is liable to be charged with perjury.
But I think the larger point is that I don’t think there is value in a debate like this in making charges about someone lying when they are clearly not lying. If you can think of a reason why there is value, I’d like to hear it.
Source?
I did see this when you first posted it.
I hope some of our lawyerly-judicial types will weigh in-- Aspenglow? AK84?
Can’t say that I blame them. And speaking as one who is already here – in the land of universal health care, gun control, peaceful diversity, a strong social safety net, and an actual impartial judicially functional Supreme Court that among other things was among the first to guarantee unconditional abortion rights and gay rights as basic human rights – “my side” from the US is welcome here. The way things are going I think pretty soon American progressives may be eligible to claim asylum in Canada. 
Send him a tweet: @LindseyGrahamSC
A twitter account is handy for direct communication with public people. I use mine only for that purpose. I follow only a handful of columnists. I don’t have any twitter followers and if anyone accidentally tries to follow me, I reject them. You can have a twitter account without getting sucked into a social media vortex. I’m not on FB, Instagram, or anything else.
Well, there you have it! The massive wave of women’s approval just overwhelmed his website!
So… are you married? Like cats? Have a spare room over the garage?
I’m not Aspenglow or AK84, but I’ll take a run at it.
“Jeopardy” doesn’t kick in until someone is brought to trial. (swearing of the jury, if I remember correctly). If Trump pardons someone before they go to trial, federal jeopardy would not attach and the states would be free to prosecute, even if duel sovereignty doctrine was overturned. Under current law, states could prosecute even after a federal trial.
Under the proposed change, if a person was convicted in federal court (or pleaded guilty) and was later pardoned, the states couldn’t do anything because of “double jeopardy.”
Not sure what “claim” by whom you are referring to. I simply observe my preference that Supremes be something other than “weaselly lawyers.” He was not answering the question asked and, instead, was answering it in a manner intended to convey something other than the truth. Looking forward to such language in his decisions for decades to come! :rolleyes:
And I readily acknowledge there is some degree of lying OBO (AFAIK) EVERY SINGLE nominee. I find it completely incredible that any experienced, competent, rational lawyer or judge would not have SOME preconceptions regarding many of the hot-button issues. Now that is a far cry from knowing how one will decide in a given case, but these simply aren’t the types of issues lawyers/judges have never thought about and formed opinions on. For them to suggest otherwise in confirmation hearings is certainly understandable, but I consider it incredible that a fed ct nominee will not have SOME pretty clear personal convictions on those issues. Yet they commonly deny same…