AFTER the hearing - who do you find more credible?

[rosemadderlake]

Students applying to Yale have excellent SAT, GPA, and achievements. The legacy factor is what can get you in.

It's not a minor thing.

jmo

That's correct. Because of the number of highly qualified applicants, and some alumni are huge donors, too.

 

[Hope4More]

Students applying to Yale have excellent SAT, GPA, and achievements. The legacy factor is what can get you in.

It's not a minor thing.

jmo

Check out George Bush Jr. 's academic qualifications for admission. He would never have been admitted to ANY Ivy without Legacy (and $$$$$$ donated).


In the real world what can make the difference between 2 perfectly stellar & perfectly perfect candidates for Ivy admission (most are just that), is:

1. Huge donations by
parents or a well connected rich "sponsor," prior to admission, and it has to be HUGE.

2. The get-him-in "request" by a wealthy, connected "sponsor" the Ivy doesn't want to alienate.

3. Legacy.

 

[Hope4More]

If there is any evidence that happened to Kavanaugh I will change my meaningless to slightly meaningful.

Admissions offices never tell, unless they are subpeoned. See Harvard lawsuit. Not pretty.

 

[RANCH]

Admissions offices never tell, unless they are subpeoned. See Harvard lawsuit. Not pretty.

Looks like it will stay meaningless to me then.

 

[Hope4More]

Looks like it will stay meaningless to me then.

It's meaningless to me too, in isolation, because I don't think K lied about it per se.

As I've said, I just think how he presented his admission as categorically being based on merit, without " connections" wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth either, part of a pattern of omitting or gliding over facts, however insignificant, that didn't fit into his paragon of virtue/my privilege doesn't matter story of self.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Here is link to article quoting ABA report stating Kavanaugh never tried a case to verdict plus other concerns about his courtroom performance:
Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

 

[Inthedetails]

Looks like it will stay meaningless to me then.

If he got into Yale through legacy and lied about it, that is meaningful. (And yes, legacy is a thing.)

The point, IMO, is whether he lied about it or not. I don't want a liar on the Supreme Court. And this would be a recent lie - he just told it last week.

Again, I ask, how many lies under oath is okay for a Supreme Court Justice to make? I would say zero.

jmo

edited to correct a major typo!

 

[beebosox]

Seriously? You're asking, seriously, who I find more credible, the nominee of the president who has himself lied thousands of times in two-plus years in office, or the woman molested by that nominee, who also lied under oath during testimony about stolen documents?

Seriously?

 

[RANCH]

Here is link to article quoting ABA report stating Kavanaugh never tried a case to verdict plus other concerns about his courtroom performance:
Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

2003? That's 15 years ago. Kavanaugh's resume has increased since then. Another meaningless factoid. JMO

When the ABA first reviewed Kavanaugh in 2003, it said in a statement yesterday, "it was noted that he had never tried a case to verdict or judgment" and "he had very little experience with criminal cases."

Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

 

[Mica]

Did this "well laid plan" include Dr Ford telling her husband and therapist about assault years ago? That is long term planning!

Call it what you want. Part of the well lain plan?

A refresher from part of Rachel Mitchell’s report...

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.


1. No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
2. No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
3. Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At this point Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

 

[RANCH]

If he got into Yale through legacy and lied about it, that is meaningful. (And yes, legacy is a thing.)

The point, IMO, is whether he lied about it or not. I don't want a liar on the Supreme Court. And this would be a recent lie - he just told it last week.



Again, I ask, how many lies under oath is okay for a Supreme Court Justice to make? I would say zero.

jmo

edited to correct a major typo!

I don't believe he lied.

 

[Inthedetails]

2003? That's 15 years ago. Kavanaugh's resume has increased since then. Another meaningless factoid. JMO



Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

Where in that article does it give info about him trying cases since 2003? Help me out with finding it. Thanks!

jmo

 

[simba16]

rsff

That’s incorrect.

Her friend believes her and has clearly said so. Kavanaugh lied under oath when he claimed Keyser “refuted” Ford’s allegations.

An important witness in the Ford-Kavanaugh standoff says she believes Ford and will 'cooperate fully' with the FBI

Christine Blasey Ford's friend clarifies statement about alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s friend does not deny assault claim, lawyer says

Yep that is another lie by BK under oath. Democrats raised concerns about possible perjury during his confirmation to District Court. Then last month possible perjury about hacked Dem emails, Bush admin issues. Thursdays hearing was full of lies

Kavanaugh Said He Had 'No Connections' to Yale. He Was, in Fact, a Legacy Student


The liberal media is grasping at straws. So what if his grandfather went to Yale. He didn't have any connections during the time period he was talking about. 1928? GMAB.

Kavanaugh said he had "no connections" to Yale. He was, in fact, a legacy student

Call it what you want. Part of the well lain plan?

A refresher from part of Rachel Mitchell’s report...

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.


1. No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
2. No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
3. Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At this point Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

So you think back in 2012 Dr Ford was plotting this. OK. Just wanted to confirm. Six years ago she concocted story of sexual assault to derail his nomination. Got it.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Here is link to article quoting ABA report stating Kavanaugh never tried a case to verdict plus other concerns about his courtroom performance:
Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

Wow. This whole thing is Constitutional blasphemy and a sham, imo. Kavanaugh needs to walk away.

 

[Mica]

Respectfully snipped by me...

="simba16, post: 14439997, member: 166524]
So you think back in 2012 Dr Ford was plotting this. OK. Just wanted to confirm. Six years ago she concocted story of sexual assault to derail his nomination. Got it.

Mitchell’s report sure makes it seem that way!

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

It's meaningless to me too, in isolation, because I don't think K lied about it per se.

As I've said, I just think how he presented his admission as categorically being based on merit, without " connections" wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth either, part of a pattern of omitting or gliding over facts, however insignificant, that didn't fit into his paragon of virtue/my privilege doesn't matter story of self.

Failure to answer truthfully and fully is perjury. It also corroborates the victim testimony because he's giving the impression that he's hiding something — ie: not answering truthfully and fully.

Hard stop.

 

[simba16]

CNN: Flake, Collins, and Murkowski determined to act as a trio, a team. All 3 contacted WH in past hours to demand complete FBI investigation.

 

[simba16]

Respectfully snipped by me...




Mitchell’s report sure makes it seem that way!

I don't see where Mitchell report encourages this bizarre theory. Are you with the Q-Anon group?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Here is link to article quoting ABA report stating Kavanaugh never tried a case to verdict plus other concerns about his courtroom performance:
Senators to Renew Debate on Court Nominee

That is not a requirement.

What does matter is he has rendered over 300 opinions in the second highest court during the 12 plus years he has been a judge in WDC.

And 16 of those opinions were so well documented that the majority opinion in the SC used his appelate opinion. That means his opinion was so well written the majority not only agreed with him but found it right on point based on the law that they used his appelate opinion ruling.. These 16 opinions most likely included liberal SC Justices.

There is no doubt he is well qualified.

That may be one of the problems the democrats have. Imo for decades they have relied on liberal SC justices when they have been unable to get through things they couldnt get enacted and passed through congress where it is suppose to happen.

What they don't want is a SC justice who is a strict constitutionalist who does not interpret the constitution how they want it to read but instead goes strictly by the constitution as it is written as it should always be done.

Jmo

 

[borndem]

He is all about Trump, no longer McCain. I think he is angling for a new job at the DOJ.

Yes, he wants to be the next Attorney General -- that's a whole 'nother nightmare. Will this ever end? Yes, but it will take a couple more years. I just wonder what kind of shape we'll be in two years from now. It truly scares me.