BS, unless you’re claiming that an investigator working for a Congressional office (usually a staffer, sometimes a private investigator) has the same institutional resources and expertise and powers as an FBI agent.
BS. The Dems know that ultimately the GOP decides when that vote happens. What we’re seeing now are blue dog Dems and more moderate Republicans hesitating in a way they might not have before yesterday.
BS. No-one’s claiming that. Kavanaugh’s performance yesterday is being compared to Ford’s (unfavourably), as is his recourse to anger and tears rather than calmly demanding an FBI investigation to clear his name. You know, the opposite of the whole calm-and-collected-and-reasonable “judicial temperament” quality that conservatives like to ascribe only to white cisgender middle-aged males.
Also, the literary reference you’re looking for to characterise your bogus contention is Heller’s “Catch-22”. You’re welcome.
Please, keep returning here to spread more BS we can call out (kind of an experiment for me). Also, this sentiment still applies here:
If anyone on Team Kavanaugh really believed that Dr. Ford’s story was a baseless Democratic conspiracy then they’d be demanding an immediate and thorough FBI investigation to clear his name and hold the conspirators accountable.
Besides, there’s lots of things an investigation could uncover. For example, just in the days since Kavanaugh released his calendar people have already pointed out that there’s an entry for a get-together at “Timmy’s” on July 1, 1982 that would fit perfectly in Dr. Ford’s timeline. It would be trivial for the FBI to figure out who “Timmy” is and if his house matched the general location and floor plan described by Dr. Ford.
Right?!? He kept saying that witnesses exonerated him when all they said was that they didn’t remember. He would characterize is as multiple, solid alibis when all those statements amounted to was, “I didn’t witness him doing this, but I wasn’t watching him 24/7.” And this guy’s not only a lawyer but a judge? Maybe, just maybe, he shouldn’t be either.
I’m sure it’s all the same body language we all learn to read to determine trustworthiness etc. But this level of analysis has always struck me as too pseudo-sciency. That said when I watch the clips I get a sense of him lying through his teeth too so maybe there is some level of legitimacy?
I would argue that the “more questions” might have been due to the fact that the Republican senators off-loaded their questioning of Dr. Ford to a prosecutor that actually concentrated on ASKING QUESTIONS instead of grandstanding. Even when they were strange, unrelated ones like about her air travel, or how her lawyers or the polygraph technician was getting paid. They were Questions.
This also bugs me. The committee brought in a sexual assault specialist, and she only asked questions of the victim? How does that play at all? Her expertise should have been brought to bear on the alleged perpetrator, not the victim.
Not only that, but it’s the height of willfully ignorant hypocrisy to whine about this nomination being “delayed”. He’s only been up for consideration for 81 days, which is well in line with precedent for consideration:
It’s not like this guy has languished in committee for months on end for no reason whatsoever. This isn’t Merrick Garland, who went 239 days without a single hearing, despite being a legitimate nomination from a lawfully-elected sitting president that many Republicans on the Judiciary Committee advocated as a “consensus” pick before he was selected and subsequently ignored.
Republicans are trying to slam this nomination through before the midterms because they’re terrified of losing the Senate. They set the timetable in advance and have been doing everything in their power to steamroll him through the committee and onto the Senate floor so that it can be done and dusted before October. The fact is that they have only sought to accelerate the process in the face of multiple allegations of sexual and physical assault that the committee themselves today declared are credible:
So despite these credible allegations, Republicans were hoping to just push right on through and ignore them, because getting this bastard on the court is more important to them than respecting the process of advice and consent. It’s all about maintaining power and control. Anyone and anything that gets in the way of that is to be pushed aside and trampled, whether it’s survivors of sexual assault or the integrity of our nation’s highest Court.
The only reason to whine about this is because they recognize that this nomination is in trouble, and there isn’t enough time to ram through a secondary pick before the election if this one goes south. And if Dems win the Senate (unlikely but not impossible), suddenly there will actually be some manner of checks and balances, and Republicans won’t be able to ram through far-right partisans with a propensity for lying under oath and losing their temper in the face of the most modest lines of inquiry like Kavanaugh anymore.
She questioned Kavanaugh, too … until her questions started inching into the uncomfortable territory of a prosecutor questioning the accused on dates, at which point the GOP Senators who praised her while hiding behind her skirts said “whoa, whoa there, you’re done, missy.”
I’m sure this is somehow all the fault of those bad ol’ Dems.
Somebody that was paying more attention to the questioning of Kavanaugh than I was pointed out that she DID ask some questions of him. But after she started asking pointed questions about the July 1 entry in his calendar, the GOP senators decided to start asking their own questions.
Somebody else was looking at the schedule for the Supreme court hearings and pointing out that there was a good reason to want their solid majority to rule on the first cases being heard.
After all, there’s no problem finding a suitably pro-plutocratic, anti-abortion guys on the appeals courts that would love to be a supreme.
A Kafka trap is when denial of guilt is used as proof of guilt. I suppose a corollary might be that a more emotional and intense denial is even more definite proof of guilt. Or proof of guilt of more serious crimes.
Kafka predates Heller.
Something doesn’t seem right when Brett claims he never did anything to anyone ever and never had a drinking problem nor does he know what “devil’s triangle” and “boof” mean when Google does.
What an act, bluster, bullying and blubbering, Bravo!
You know what’s easier to use as proof of guilt? Lying. Under oath. Which Kavanaugh has done. Multiple times. About multiple things. His credibility is worthless and he has no one to blame for that but himself.
I’m not an American so only watch this stuff from the side lines. But the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham is telling the Democrats to watch out? After Garland’s appointment was basically ignored? This whole tit-for-tat behavior in American politics is ridiculous. I would expect ANY appointed SCOTUS judge to be investigated if there were sexual assault allegations. I don’t care which side of the political fence they sit on.
I get it, the stakes are high for having control of the Supreme Court. But holy crap is it an over politicised endeavour in the US. There has to be a better impartial process to appoint judges. Maybe I’m blind to it, but I certainly don’t get a sense of this level of politics to Supreme Court judges in Canada. Is it because of our multi-party system? I’m not sure.
The term “Kafkatrap” was coined by Eric Raymond in 2010. Catch-22 was published in 1961. If you’d used the portmanteau term or said something like “a Kafkaesque trap” I would have left the literary reference alone, but it’s like you’re addicted to BSing.
