People under oath. Is that a trick question?
Let’s say you run a small business like a law firm or something and you’re interviewing people for the position of office manager or some such. What’s the maximum number of obvious lies that they can tell you and you will consider hiring them?
As you may know, Clinton was sued by Paula Jones, a state employee who worked under Clinton for sexual harassment. Under the rules established by statute, case law, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, in such a case, it is relevant testimony to hear about other relationships the Defendant had in the workplaces with subordinates whether that relationship was consensual or non-consensual.
As such, his testimony regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky was material and relevant to Jones’ accusation.
The, “I don’t remember asking you a goddamned thing,” part was my favorite.
As noted above, these are not obvious lies. Further, I would not ask them about their drinking habits 30 years ago.
Your dodging of the question is noted.
How about the fact that he’s a partisan hack, temperamentally unsuited to be a judge, who will demean and discredit the Supreme Court and destroy whatever vestige of credibility it has left, and who couldn’t make an unbiased ruling on a politically sensitive case if his life depended on it.
Even if he’s innocent of Ford’s accusations – which I seriously doubt given everything we know so far – his vicious and totally unsubstantiated attacks Thursday in front of the whole nation against Democrats, the Clintons, and all things progressive should immediately disqualify him from the highest court. He came across as an unhinged spittle-mouthed lunatic. The idea that he would be an impartial judge on such matters if confirmed to the Supreme Court is every bit as much of a fantasy as the blameless choir-boy picture he tried to paint of his debauched alcoholic youth.
This is a national watershed moment, and it appears Republicans totally don’t give a shit about their highest court, their judicial system, or their country.
Not even if it had direct bearing on an attempted rape and perjury before Congress? :rolleyes:
Which senators specifically have accused him of each of those, rather than just asking him about it. I don’t recall that happening.
Earlier I posted that I wondered what the D’s would do if the situation was perfectly reversed. That is, Garland was nominated, the D’s are in the majority, and these kinds of allegations came up. But I should have also wondered what the R’s would do in that case. If Garland had these kinds of accusations, would you be as forgiving and dismissive of his accusations? How much of your opinion here is because Kavanaugh is conservative versus what actually he’s being accused of.
I personally think in the reverse case that the R’s would be demanding investigations into all areas of Garlands’s life. And not only from the R’s in Congress. I imagine the RW radio and social media outlets would be clogged from people saying we must have an investigation. But I would think that 90%+ percent of their motivation for calling for an investigation would be for political reasons rather than they care about the accuser or the nature of the accusations. I think the D’s are also politically motivated in calling for an investigation of Kavanaugh, but I think it’s more like only 40% of their reasoning. They actually do care a great deal about the nature of the accusations, but because it aligns here with their political desires, they are calling for a full investigation.
And not to quote myself, but this is very serious for Manchin. He has a relatively comfortable lead and should win re-election. If he votes against Kavanaugh, he will see himself in a huge dogfight and very likely to lose re-election. People in this state are very strong behind Kavanaugh. Manchin always claims to be pro-life and pro-gun. If he votes no, it will be the last straw for so many people I have personally spoken with who are planning to vote for him.
Manchin is the last vote we need and Kavanaugh can be confirmed, even without Collins or Murkowski.
Yeah, if I were in that position, I’d want the FBI in there, tout suite, to prove my innocence.
Funny that he didn’t.
You’ve made it clear that your sympathy lies with the wealthy and powerful white male accused of sexual assault, who very obviously lied during the Thursday hearing, and it’s welcome to see you admit that you don’t care that he lied, even though his drinking habits were absolutely material to the allegation in question, rather than the everyday woman who made the accusation. You’ve also made it clear that you’re not interested in any attempt at an objective investigation into these allegations.
With that in mind, do you have any illusion in your mind that those of us with some sympathy for Dr. Ford would consider your analysis as anything other than partisan hackery?
In other words, it’s okay when a Republican lies under oath.
My second. First? His wife’s disapproving frown. 
Really, no.
Allow me to make an analogy from my professional experience. I’m a pediatrician and as such am a “mandated reporter.” If there are injuries which must be, by their very nature, considered “suspicious” for abuse, certain sorts of fractures for example, I must report and the family must be investigated. Most families have understood why the system is that way, are nervous but appreciate that the process is a necessary one and express no anger at me at all. Zero. Here I am saying that there needs to be an investigation about whether or not they are abusing their children, and no anger at me at all. Very rare for the complaint to be determined as “founded” in these cases but mandated is mandated. There have been a handful of parents over the years that have gotten very angry when I have filed. What a shock, every one of those families had the investigation come up with a determination of abuse.
I think guilty people think that a not guilty person would be offended so that such is how they should act, so they do. But generally the not guilty, while not happy and scared, appreciate how the investigative process protects kids, why it is necessary, and they are mostly confident about their not having done anything wrong.
It is unremarkable for a guilty person to react like that, but completely remarkable for a not guilty person to. If not guilty (playing on that hypothetical assumption) that reaction was very unusual, very remarkable, and very much a sign of an unstable temperament.
I can imagine Scalia having made a sarcastic joke in the context. Calmly, maybe arrogantly, and with a smile.
As has been stated over and over and over and fucking over again, the FBI cannot prove his innocence. Short of testimony from God, there can be no way to prove that he wasn’t at some house on some day between 1981 and 1984. This is a red herring and it always has been.
How did he lie? How is his drinking relevant? If a person is an alcoholic, are they a rapist then by definition? If that is relevant, the Ford’s drinking habits are relevant. Perhaps she was intoxicated and unsure about what happened.
She cannot even remember how she got home even though she admitted that her home was not in walking distance and would have had to walk back inside the house she just escaped from or gone to a stranger’s house to make a phone call.
As I have said before, I don’t know what happened, neither do you, and nothing at this late date can be found to substantiate it. Oh, but we can find people to accuse Kavanaugh of being a drunk or being a dick to women in his yearbook, so let’s keep investigating. Anything to keep him off the Court!
He responded to questions by saying things that he knew to be untrue. Was that a real question?
By George, I think he’s got it!
As I watch T and K’s antics, I keep thinking about how Howard Dean was excoriated and dismissed as a serious candidate after the “Dean Scream,” which was nothing at all like “grab her by the ----” or “Lock her up! Lock her up!,” or even (I paraphrase), “Beer, I like beer, everyone likes beer. Beer! Beer!”
Re the Clinton deflection.
There is no question that the norms of the late '90s were not the norms of today. He got off easier than he should have (and he was impeached) and few who supported him then would be similarly supporting a repeat of him today. Or tolerate the obfuscation he engaged in. It is of note that Ellison knows that the only way forward for him is to call for the investigation that might clear him (or not).
Franken resigned over much less.
We have made progress in our appreciation of sexual assault and harassment since the '90s. Readily agreed that we have much to do yet to get the process right and that there will be lots of arguing over what “right” should look like.
Can we agree on that much?
I thought he looked drunk, IMHO. Not falling down drunk, but had a couple to calm the nerves (and dt’s)drunk.
I’ve known functional alcoholics. They need to have a bit of sauce in their veins or they physically and mentally hurt. For the most part, they are functional, but they are much easier angered, much more emotional, and much more red faced.
I really wish that, after his tirade about liking beer, one of the senators had offered him a breathalyzer and asked him blow in it.
He may blow a 0.000, as “sober as a judge”, but I doubt it.
If he blew higher than absolute zero, he’d probably use as an excuse having a glass of wine or two with lunch if he blew anything else. Which would show poor judgement, drinking before a hearing about drinking.
He’d probably simply refuse and scream about what an outrage it is that he is expected to back up his statements.