Reply With QuoteCould Judge Judy now be seriously considered as an option ?Originally Posted by lardy
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
That's OK mate never offended, mate
Could Judge Judy now be seriously considered as an option ?
Riveting. Haven't missed a minute of it.
Oh dear. What an evasive and self-satisfied person he is. Tetchy, illogical, highly temperamental and slimy at times. Lots of bluster for a man of his background.
Too many gaps in the accusers story and not enough evidence against the accused. The Democrats were also playing fast and loose with the way they managed the whole episode. I agree with Sen. Graham, they were both victims. Sen. Feinstein set her up with a Clinton Lawyer and a McCabe lawyer. Sadly it all seems to be about the Democrats, and not the two people we saw giving testomony today. This case wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding in a court of law.
Why is he partly cloudy
It's not a court of law though - and he isn't convincing at all. If he is innocent he is making the biggest mess of the situation possible. The Devil's Triangle explanation was perhaps artful too.
It was an impossible situation for both of them. The democrats were running a character assassination and weren't interested in observing the rule of law, while the republicans employed a softer approach towards the accuser, who incidentally would have been shredded before a competant prosecutor. Today was a very sad day for eveybody involved, and especially for politics where the win at all costs ugliness has been laid bare for all to see.
Yes but one of them is lying. And why is he struggling so much to prove his integrity? Some of his responses are excrutiating.
Because it was a character assassination and not a trial. Nobody would survive that process the way it was orchestrated and setup.
I have watched every second so far and he is, without doubt, dishonest, evasive and narcissistic.
They were pressing to get the FBI involved at every given opportunity, hence there was a microscopic analysis of his every word and action which led to him being overcautious to the point of being excruciating. The Democrats playbook involved geting his confirmation delayed until after the midterms, in the hope that they could win the house and stop the republican nomination. In football parlance, Kavanaugh parked the bus and refused to play their game. It's possible that something may have happened to that woman, but I'm just not convinced that it was Kavanaugh who did it. BTW I don't think this matter is finished yet, still more to come..
Having watched them both I'm inclined to agree with you . The one thing I'm fairly sure its politically motivated,based on the other charecter smears , that's not to say something has happened to this lady a long time ago .
What is puzzling ,
Kavanagh would have been pubically known in the USA ,and made headlines before now and before this nomination ,so why have folk not stepped up before now .
Maybe you weren't watching that closely as she addressed that in her testimony.
He is still dishonest about his past. And his performance was positively juvenile on many occasions. Hardly what you would expect of someone in his position.
I liked the "We should pray for the woman" bit
Reminded me of Little House oh the Prarie
So says the man who says he likes to examine the evidence logically before arriving at a decision and yet, once he has done so, still always comes to an anti Democratic Party decision. As I've said before, I willingly admit my bias, but mine is as nothing compared to yours and yet you still carry on as if it doesn't exist.
You're right TBG. A court would have other witnesses. But they were deliberately excluded here to make it a he said she said, which helps the defendant no end. As expected, it was a sham box ticking exercise; not so expected was his dreadful performance. The American Bar have said today that he shouldn't be voted in without a proper investigation.
Speaking of Devil's Triangle, Wikipedia has been updated from a congressional IP address to include it as a drinking game (it isn't) rather than a sexual game (it is).
Fair play to the democrats, they set this up by getting her to tell her therapist his name and the story in 2012. How about that for planning ahead?So says the man who says he likes to examine the evidence logically before arriving at a decision and yet, once he has done so, still always comes to an anti Democratic Party decision. As I've said before, I willingly admit my bias, but mine is as nothing compared to yours and yet you still carry on as if it doesn't exist
And also fair play to them for getting a woman to have her life ruined just so they can...What exactly? The GOP can easily get another judge voted on, and one they all approve of rather than Bart. I'm not sure exactly what they are supposed to have won here.
life on mars, you said you were puzzled why she hadn't come forward before.
In this post, despite there having been no investigation, despite you having seen no evidence, despite you having heard nothing from either party beyond "this happened" "no it didn't", despite you even not having seen her face for that matter, you made a conclusion that it probably didn't happen based on a gut feeling.
May I suggest that this is why sexual assault victims rarely come forward.
Interestingly, Lindsay Graham called the ABA the gold standard in his emotional speech defending Bart at the hearing.
Someone lied on oath yesterday. It was either the person (that woman as Christine Blasey Ford was so delicately called in an earlier post) who appeared to have very little to personally gain by being in that room yesterday or it was that man who had every thing to lose.
Does one of them have a history of lying under oath? That might help the ccmb sofa detectives come to a conclusion.
And only one of them has taken a polygraph test.
Posting Permissions
