If the lawyers leaked the letter, wouldn't both Feinstein and Ford have answered correctly?

If Ford spoke to someone before speaking to Feinstein, couldn't they both have answered correctly?

But most importantly, if lying ot congress is such a big deal, how come we can't investigate whether Brett Kavanaugh did exactly that?

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

---

Bob Mueller will be looking for something to do because he's about to get shut down for running an illegal investigation.

I think you should care about information on Dr. Ford since she's making the allegation.

What do you suspect Kavanaugh lied about?

---

1. Whether he ever drank to the point of memory loss.
2. Whether he meant his yearbook reference to the Renate women as a sign of admiration vs. a boast that he had slept with her.
3. Whether his references to boofing and the devil's triangle in his his yearbook were to drinking games or to sexual innuendo.
4. Whether the yearbook reference to being part of the Beach Week ralphing club referred to frequent vomiting based on drinking too much or to problems handling spicy food.
5. Whether the drinking age in Maryland was 18 when he was 18.
6. Whether the young women of the Holton Arms school regularly socialized with the young men of Georgetown Prep.
7. Whether he knew he was a legacy student at yale despite claiming he had no connections.
8. Whether he knows that Mark Judge's "Bart O'Kvanaugh" character was actually a slightly fictionalized version of himself in high school.
9. Whether or the extent to which he was involved in the following during his time at the Bush White House: (1) the Pickering/Pryor nominations; (2) the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping program; and (3) the Bush Admin's detainee policy.
10. Whether he was aware of Judge Kozinski's harassment of clerks and habit of publishing inappropriate material.
11. Whether he knew he had emails stolen from the Democrats while he was trying to push Bush judicial nominees.

To be clear I don't think he "lied about all of that." It is just that he was either sufficiently evasive or other people have made credible contradictions such that I would like to know more.

As to caring abut Ford, I care in the sense that anyone who intentionally lies and damages others should face consequences. But that concern pales in comparison to protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court. Also, I don't see anyway we can ever know enough about the alleged assault for her claim to serve as a basis for keeping Kavanaugh off the Court. So if her claim is affirmatively disproven fine, good for him. But it won't change my mind about whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve. Answering my 11 categories above would.

#12 Why did he testify that the first he knew of the Ramirez story was reading the New Yorker article when he was coordinating a response to the allegations days before publication.

The list is growing

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

---

Bob Mueller will be looking for something to do because he's about to get shut down for running an illegal investigation.

I think you should care about information on Dr. Ford since she's making the allegation.

What do you suspect Kavanaugh lied about?

---

1. Whether he ever drank to the point of memory loss.
2. Whether he meant his yearbook reference to the Renate women as a sign of admiration vs. a boast that he had slept with her.
3. Whether his references to boofing and the devil's triangle in his his yearbook were to drinking games or to sexual innuendo.
4. Whether the yearbook reference to being part of the Beach Week ralphing club referred to frequent vomiting based on drinking too much or to problems handling spicy food.
5. Whether the drinking age in Maryland was 18 when he was 18.
6. Whether the young women of the Holton Arms school regularly socialized with the young men of Georgetown Prep.
7. Whether he knew he was a legacy student at yale despite claiming he had no connections.
8. Whether he knows that Mark Judge's "Bart O'Kvanaugh" character was actually a slightly fictionalized version of himself in high school.
9. Whether or the extent to which he was involved in the following during his time at the Bush White House: (1) the Pickering/Pryor nominations; (2) the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping program; and (3) the Bush Admin's detainee policy.
10. Whether he was aware of Judge Kozinski's harassment of clerks and habit of publishing inappropriate material.
11. Whether he knew he had emails stolen from the Democrats while he was trying to push Bush judicial nominees.

To be clear I don't think he "lied about all of that." It is just that he was either sufficiently evasive or other people have made credible contradictions such that I would like to know more.

As to caring abut Ford, I care in the sense that anyone who intentionally lies and damages others should face consequences. But that concern pales in comparison to protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court. Also, I don't see anyway we can ever know enough about the alleged assault for her claim to serve as a basis for keeping Kavanaugh off the Court. So if her claim is affirmatively disproven fine, good for him. But it won't change my mind about whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve. Answering my 11 categories above would.

---

#5 we don't need an FBI investigation for this one. I googled it. It wasn't 18 when he was 18. But so what? Should we see if he ever ran a stop sign? Exceeded the speed limit? Jaywalked? Because these are all similar laws that almost everyone breaks.

I don't know why this a difficult concept to understand other than a willful
desire to avoid a difficult issue. My focus is not the underlying acts, whether alleged or actual. It is whther Judge Kavanaugh is being honest in his testimony.

So I don't care that he drank while underage. But I wonder why he misrepresented the legal drinking age. I am roughly his age, had similar experiences to what he described in high school and I know for certain what the legal drinking age was in my state. So does almost everyone I know. "Becoming legal" to buy alcohol is a rite of passage that most people who drink remember vividly. So it is an odd thing to forget or be mistaken about.

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

Booray said:

---

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

---

I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

---

I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.

---

You wouldn't because you believe in alternative facts.

You started this thread by saying Dr. Ford should have to account for the details of her story. Now you say that Judge Kavanaugh is exempt from the same requirement. A gentle reminder-these hearings are about him, not her. I expect something better than "hey, it's not provable perjury" from him. Not sure I got that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

---

I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.

---

We could know the truth. But Judge Kavanaugh didn't help by being evasive, nor by asking us to believe some of the things on Booray's listicle.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

---

I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.

---

You wouldn't because you believe in alternative facts.

You started this thread by saying Dr. Ford should have to account for the details of her story. Now you say that Judge Kavanaugh is exempt from the same requirement. A gentle reminder-these hearings are about him, not her. I expect something better than "hey, it's not provable perjury" from him. Not sure I got that.

---

Alternative facts? No.

Judge Kavanaugh isn't making any accusations.

Dr. Ford is. She is the only one telling a story.

There is a huge difference between both positions.
When you make an accusation you need to account for the details in the story.

When you are defending yourself over a 36 year old accusation...details are going to be much more difficult to remember.

Kavanaugh is being questioned and giving his answers about something he claims he is wrongly accused of.
You just aren't convinced by his answers: maybe because you don't like his politics or you might not feel it's enough evidence.

What I am telling you is that anything he says about the questions he's asked will not satisfy you.

ABC-

No. I also don't reminisce over old calendars.

What I am is an attorney who has sat through thousands of hours of testimony over subjects o questionable relevance to the issue being decided. Never once did I hear a judge say "No need to be truthful over the small stuff."

You will also note my list has several entries that deal with government, not personal life.

At the end of the day, asking for honesty from a SCOTUS nominee is a pretty standard request.

First look at 9,10 and 11 of my issues-nothing to do with the Ford scenario.

Second, Judge Kavanaugh's position on Dr. Ford's accusation is, in part, I never drank to the point where I would have done something like that because of the alcohol. That makes his drinking life relevant. And some of his answers there are suspect to say the least.

Booray said:

---

ABC-

No. I also don't reminisce over old calendars.

What I am is an attorney who has sat through thousands of hours of testimony over subjects o questionable relevance to the issue being decided. Never once did I hear a judge say "No need to be truthful over the small stuff."

You will also note my list has several entries that deal with government, not personal life.

At the end of the day, asking for honesty from a SCOTUS nominee is a pretty standard request.

---

.....and I think we've seen quite enough honesty for one judicial hearing. Apparently there isn't enough of a paper trail during his years on the bench to make a determination on his qualifications, now we have to investigate whether he drank beer before he was 18.....give me a break.

Malbec,

Yees, exactly.

Alright Booray, how about I give you an equivalent question that you want to give Kavanaugh in order for me to figure out who you really are or if you're believable. Since this is the basis of you wanting to question Kavanaugh.

Are you in favor of delay tactics to get through the November election in hopes that voters will return power to Democrats so they can block any Supreme Court nominations?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.

---

I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.

---

We could know the truth. But Judge Kavanaugh didn't help by being evasive, nor by asking us to believe some of the things on Booray's listicle.

---

What makes you believe he's being evasive?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Alright Booray, how about I give you an equivalent question that you want to give Kavanaugh in order for me to figure out who you really are or if you're believable. Since this is the basis of you wanting to question Kavanaugh.

Are you in favor of delay tactics to get through the November election in hopes that voters will return power to Democrats so they can block any Supreme Court nominations?

---

I don't accept your premise, but no.

1. Anybody who thinks the GOP is not going to seat a justice before January does not know Mitch McConnell.

2. There has been no delay to this point. The opposite is true, the Senate is being asked to consider a nominee with an unusual volume of a paper trail and unusual allegations against him in the usual amount of time.

3. I have said repeatedly with regard to judicial nominees of both parties that they all deserve votes.

BTW, the fact that you would whine about delay of a couple of weeks after the GOP essentially shut down Obama's nominees at all levels for years is the definition of hypocrisy.

Malbec said:

---

---

???

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Alright Booray, how about I give you an equivalent question that you want to give Kavanaugh in order for me to figure out who you really are or if you're believable. Since this is the basis of you wanting to question Kavanaugh.

Are you in favor of delay tactics to get through the November election in hopes that voters will return power to Democrats so they can block any Supreme Court nominations?

---

I don't accept your premise, but no.

1. Anybody who thinks the GOP is not going to seat a justice before January does not know Mitch McConnell.

2. There has been no delay to this point. The opposite is true, the Senate is being asked to consider a nominee with an unusual volume of a paper trail and unusual allegations against him in the usual amount of time.

3. I have said repeatedly with regard to judicial nominees of both parties that they all deserve votes.

BTW, the fact that you would whine about delay of a couple of weeks after the GOP essentially shut down Obama's nominees at all levels for years is the definition of hypocrisy.

---

Your answers are too evasive and questionable.
I don't believe you.

Don't like it do you?

Yes yes, the GOP shutdown Obama's nominees for years. Years and years and years. They certainly didn't vote to confirm 2 of Obama's nominees, including one in his second year, exactly like Trump is in his second year. This is actually what happened, no matter what Wikipedia tells you, bud, and you better believe it.

Chuck Schumer: We are in this situation because the Republicans have been unable to maintain unity.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Alright Booray, how about I give you an equivalent question that you want to give Kavanaugh in order for me to figure out who you really are or if you're believable. Since this is the basis of you wanting to question Kavanaugh.

Are you in favor of delay tactics to get through the November election in hopes that voters will return power to Democrats so they can block any Supreme Court nominations?

---

I don't accept your premise, but no.

1. Anybody who thinks the GOP is not going to seat a justice before January does not know Mitch McConnell.

2. There has been no delay to this point. The opposite is true, the Senate is being asked to consider a nominee with an unusual volume of a paper trail and unusual allegations against him in the usual amount of time.

3. I have said repeatedly with regard to judicial nominees of both parties that they all deserve votes.

BTW, the fact that you would whine about delay of a couple of weeks after the GOP essentially shut down Obama's nominees at all levels for years is the definition of hypocrisy.

---

Your answers are too evasive and questionable.
I don't believe you.

Don't like it do you?

---

You are a real tool.

My answers are specific, verifiable and accurate. On the subjects I identified Judge Kavanaugh's were not-as far as I can tell.

I also know the Judge have written answers I have not seen and closed door testimony I have not heard. The FBI may turn up information that discredits or corroborates what he said. So I have been careful as to how I characterized the Judge's testimony.

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.