[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin, I think you are confusing this process with a court of law.

It's a job interview.

No, it's a political and MSM smear campaign which reeks of desperation.

And without any evidence, it should all have been completely ignored
by both politicians and media.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin, I think you are confusing this process with a court of law.

It's a job interview.

No, this is a Constitutional act and the Judiciary Committee acts as a court when witnesses are brought before it and they testify under oath. The Committee exercises several powers when it convenes as a court and it can on its own issue subpoenas, it can issue arrest warrants, it can issue search warrants, and it can hold people in contempt and then even sentence them to terms in Federal prison for contempt and for perjury.

In their hearings today people will testify under oath and the Committee is then acting as a court.

It is not a mere 'job interview' because there is a potential for serious consequences for any witness found to have been lying to this committee.

[llama66]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin, I think you are confusing this process with a court of law.

It's a job interview.

No, this is a Constitutional act and the Judiciary Committee acts as a court when witnesses are brought before it and they testify under oath. The Committee exercises several powers when it convenes as a court and it can on its own issue subpoenas, it can issue arrest warrants, it can issue search warrants, and it can hold people in contempt and then even sentence them to terms in Federal prison for contempt and for perjury.

In their hearings today people will testify under oath and the Committee is then acting as a court.

It is not a mere 'job interview' because there is a potential for serious consequences for any witness found to have been lying to this committee.

As with any legal proceeding. Perjury is a pretty serious offense.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin, I think you are confusing this process with a court of law.

It's a job interview.

No, this is a Constitutional act and the Judiciary Committee acts as a court when witnesses are brought before it and they testify under oath. The Committee exercises several powers when it convenes as a court and it can on its own issue subpoenas, it can issue arrest warrants, it can issue search warrants, and it can hold people in contempt and then even sentence them to terms in Federal prison for contempt and for perjury.

In their hearings today people will testify under oath and the Committee is then acting as a court.

It is not a mere 'job interview' because there is a potential for serious consequences for any witness found to have been lying to this committee.

As with any legal proceeding. Perjury is a pretty serious offense.

Exactly. But it is still the Legislative branch of Government, not the Judicial.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Exactly. But it is still the Legislative branch of Government, not the Judicial.

And in this case they are acting as a court of law with all of the appropriate powers thereof.

It is NOT a job interview where the only negative consequence is not getting hired.

[xerxes]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Martin, I think you are confusing this process with a court of law.

It's a job interview.

No, this is a Constitutional act and the Judiciary Committee acts as a court when witnesses are brought before it and they testify under oath. The Committee exercises several powers when it convenes as a court and it can on its own issue subpoenas, it can issue arrest warrants, it can issue search warrants, and it can hold people in contempt and then even sentence them to terms in Federal prison for contempt and for perjury.

In their hearings today people will testify under oath and the Committee is then acting as a court.

It is not a mere 'job interview' because there is a potential for serious consequences for any witness found to have been lying to this committee.

True that. And the fact that being charged with perjury for false testimony should give weight to the allegations being made given the consequences for lying. Especially in the case of the third accuser, who has security clearances, who’s career would be over should it be proved she perjured herself

[BartSimpson]

Rut-roh!

b]USA Today[/b] is starting to question the wisdom of the Democrat's unhinged and clearly fabricated assault on Judge Kavanaugh!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 437100002/

$1:

Despite new accusers, Democrats war on Brett Kavanaugh could cost them midterm elections

By disparaging Kavanaugh, Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. They might pay in the midterm elections.

Have Democrats gone so overboard in trying to demonize Brett Kavanaugh that they risk a backlash from upstanding men and the women who love them?

Let’s start with the premise that Democrats want to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the high court by any means necessary. Their modus operandi is to bring up alleged sexual assault charges late in the game to delay or derail the nomination process. They see it as a win-win: they either destroy Kavanaugh, discourage the Republican voter base, and deal a significant blow to the Trump presidency (the real target of all this); or Republicans hang together in the face of this political monsoon, confirm Kavanaugh, and alienate women voters in the process, leading to Democratic victories in the midterm election.

Democrats seem to think this political game won’t cost them. But they have left the reaction of men out of the equation.

An NPR/Marist poll this week finds that a plurality of Americans are undecided on the issue, but there is a predictable gender gap with somewhat more men believing Kavanaugh and more women believing accuser Christine Blasey Ford. This supports the Democratic strategy in general, but it is noteworthy that many red-state Democratic Senators are still on the fence. Moving too soon against Kavanaugh could cost them at the ballot box if Ford does not come off as slam-dunk credible in Thursday’s hearing.

By most accounts, Brett Kavanaugh is a straight arrow guy. He has lived an exemplary and successful life. Yet his very squareness is the foundation for the Democratic story line, the contrasting idea that Kavanaugh has a malevolent hidden history. With the new and bizarre “gang rape” claims put forward by “total lowlife” porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, the story could become the Duke Lacrosse case 2.0. It’s the Lifetime movie version of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

[Thanos]

Gonna be interesting to see if the GOP evangelical woman who was a big wheel in Joe Arpaio's incompetent sex crimes department succeeds with the tough questions and makes the professor cry.

[xerxes]

She’s not succeeding. Her questioning is terrible and Ford is completely credible as a witness.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

She’s not succeeding. Her questioning is terrible and Ford is completely credible as a witness.

Yeah, except that her legal team made a serious mistake when they submitted the polygraph as evidence.

Ford said she can't fly because of some sort of anxiety issue, right?

Yet the location for the polygraph examination wasn't in California where Ford lives, it was in Baltimore...3000 miles away...at the airport hotel.

[llama66]

Polygraph tests are 80% effective. I'd fail giving my name.

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

She’s not succeeding. Her questioning is terrible and Ford is completely credible as a witness.

Yeah, except that her legal team made a serious mistake when they submitted the polygraph as evidence.

Ford said she can't fly because of some sort of anxiety issue, right?

Yet the location for the polygraph examination wasn't in California where Ford lives, it was in Baltimore...3000 miles away...at the airport hotel.

And she has flown all over, Caribbean, Pacific islands, New Hampshire.

More than 95% of American I'll bet.

To say she is afraid of flying is an outright lie.

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

She’s not succeeding. Her questioning is terrible and Ford is completely credible as a witness.

Because every answer is I don't know or I can't remember.

Doesn't even know who aid for the polygraph.

BUT SHE IS 100% about Judge Kavanaugh.

What an absolute joke.

[Coach85]

martin14 martin14:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

She’s not succeeding. Her questioning is terrible and Ford is completely credible as a witness.

Yeah, except that her legal team made a serious mistake when they submitted the polygraph as evidence.

Ford said she can't fly because of some sort of anxiety issue, right?

Yet the location for the polygraph examination wasn't in California where Ford lives, it was in Baltimore...3000 miles away...at the airport hotel.

And she has flown all over, Caribbean, Pacific islands, New Hampshire.

More than 95% of American I'll bet.

To say she is afraid of flying is an outright lie.

Because people who are afraid of something, never do it, right?

My wife has been afraid of flying since she was 5-6 years old. We've been on 8 flights this year.

[martin14]

Coach85 Coach85:

Because people who are afraid of something, never do it, right?

My wife has been afraid of flying since she was 5-6 years old. We've been on 8 flights this year.

She said she wouldn't come to DC because she was afraid of flying.

This an outright lie.






I dont know when the polygraph, the funeral day or the day after.

Feinstein's office told me what lawyers to hire.

I dont know who is paying my lawyers.

I dont know how I got to the party.

I dont know how I got home.

I dont know how the letter I wrote was made public.