I'm personally exhausted by the constant allegations coming out by both parties every day. I don't see how anyone - regardless of their political leanings - can't concede that politics is at its lowest and more corrupt stage in history.

ETA - I'm talking about U.S. politics, but it's probably at that stage just about everywhere.

(10-04-2019 06:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm personally exhausted by the constant allegations coming out by both parties every day. I don't see how anyone - regardless of their political leanings - can't concede that politics is at its lowest and more corrupt stage in history.
ETA - I'm talking about U.S. politics, but it's probably at that stage just about everywhere.

Wow! We agree on something about politics.

If I was a lawyer, I would warn my client that the th other side was trying to trap him.

Senator: have you ever drank to the point of not being able to remember everything’s?

Big’s client: yes, many times

Senator: then how can you say you never did this thing? Isn’t it possible you could have done it while drunk and not remember it?

Gotcha.

OO - if I am the attorney, I tell my client to answer truthfully but to pre-answer that follow-up question ... which is exactly what my hypothetical Kavanaufh answer did a few posts above. And Kavanaugh had people far smarter than me helping him prepare, so he could have easily and effectively done that. If he had chosen to.

(10-04-2019 07:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - if I am the attorney, intel my client to answer truthfully but to pre-answer that follow-up question ... which is exactly what my hypothetical Kavanaufh answer did a few posts above. And Kavanaugh had people fat smarter than me, so he could have easily and effectively done that.

Pre answer, post answer - how would they differ?

(10-03-2019 08:05 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Thank you. I definitely thought that I was literally watching Kavanaugh complete a job interview. I was surprised they hired him after all that yelling, but this really clears things up.

Yet you still invoke the 'job interview" claptrap in spite of that.

(10-03-2019 08:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Do any of the pro-Kavanaugh posters actually believe he was truthful when testifying about his drinking habits, particularly when Senator Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank the point where he didn’t remember what happened? You all keep falling back on “I don’t think he sexually assaulted anyone” without addressing what I think were pretty obvious misleading (at best) efforts to minimize his drinking and partying. Was his performance really something that left you with a warm, fuzzy feeling for a lifetime appointee, knowing there were a couple handful of other similarly qualified individuals who would have ruled basically the same on cases and without toeing the line of perjury on any topic?

No worse than 12 effectively lifetime appointees trying tovtag and equate such drinking to forcible sexual assault and attempted rape.

Maybe we should have an eqivalent 'defame with ancillary crap' bar to serving as a US Senator. Ot add 'interview with nothing more than loaded innuendo'.

At least in a trial we both know that most likely each attorney coaches their witnesses to tell the truth. And in a yrial setting *each side* gets a chance at the innuendo crap the Demsctossed at Kavanaugh. So your guidance as to the usefulness of trial / deposition prep is not really on point simply because of the inherent duality.

There is zero such duality in the confirmation hearing. You dont like the evasiveness and I dont like the trial by innuendo.

(10-04-2019 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Late night text dumps look bad for El Jefe.

Mid morning there on. a cellphone, sparky.

Cant really stop that 'arrogant surfical response thingy" there can you.

*This* is a late night / early am post on thecsame cellphone, sparky fyi.

OO - preanswer lets the witness control the context and avoids the question being framed in a negative way. My Rule #2 for witnesses is that they are in control of the deposition/testimony (which has many different facets).

tanq - should we assume that your answer to my question is “no, I can’t defend Kavanaugh’s truthfulness”?

(10-04-2019 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Late night text dumps look bad for El Jefe.

Mid morning there on. a cellphone, sparky.

Cant really stop that 'arrogant surfical response thingy" there can you.

*This* is a late night / early am post on thecsame cellphone, sparky fyi.

Not quite sure what you’re suggesting in this post.

The late night text dumps still look bad for Trump - what’s arrogant about that statement?

(10-04-2019 08:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - preanswer lets the witness control the context and avoids the question being framed in a negative way. My Rule #2 for witnesses is that they are in control of the deposition/testimony (which has many different facets).

tanq - should we assume that your answer to my question is “no, I can’t defend Kavanaugh’s truthfulness”?

I edited to respond more fully without seeing this.

I found your original spot about hypocrisy spot on. Imo the hypocrisy here is supporting the trial by innuendo (that you seemingly impliedly do since you dont indict it in the slightest) and chastising evasive responses.

You know (as well as I do) the standard is not one that an answer is evasive yet truthful, but one of being untruthful.

At least some of Kavanaughs statements are the former. I dont see them as the latter.

If the Dems processes were more in search of a truth than a hunt for damaging innuendo I might fall on your side. But we both know that wssnt the case. The Dems went on a throw the kitchen sink, the beer keg, and the Izod polo shirt at Kavanaugh on a search and destroy.... evidenced by the leak of Ford's original comments when *zero* corroboration existed.

So I cannot decry one or more evasive answers in light of that lack of duality.

Had it been less than the Hunt for the Red SCOTUS Nominee which we got I might actually be critical of such evasive answers.

But when my opponents use the trial by innuendo road, as long as the evasive answers can have a toehold in the truth I have zero issues with it.

When I have faced opponents such as you who drill their clients that every question deserves a full truthful answer, then that absolutetly would be reciprocated. The Ford episode didnt meet that threshold imo by a country light year.

The Kavanaugh "confirmation hearings" were nothing more or less than a lynch mob. I frankly thought Kavanaugh was way too cooperative for way too long.

(10-04-2019 09:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Kavanaugh "confirmation hearings" were nothing more or less than a lynch mob. I frankly thought Kavanaugh was way too cooperative for way too long.

Lol. Kavanaugh was anything but cooperative. He took the Trump approach, no question.

(10-04-2019 08:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Late night text dumps look bad for El Jefe.

Mid morning there on. a cellphone, sparky.

Cant really stop that 'arrogant surfical response thingy" there can you.

*This* is a late night / early am post on thecsame cellphone, sparky fyi.

Not quite sure what you’re suggesting in this post.

The late night text dumps still look bad for Trump - what’s arrogant about that statement?

Apologies. Thought you were making a snarky comment to my post directly over yours that had a 3am US timestamp.

Btw its 5am where I am now.

(10-04-2019 09:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Kavanaugh "confirmation hearings" were nothing more or less than a lynch mob. I frankly thought Kavanaugh was way too cooperative for way too long.

Lol. Kavanaugh was anything but cooperative. He took the Trump approach, no question.

You seemingly forget there were 2 different sets of hearings.

The first was no different than any other 'I cant answer because there might be a case' answer that was perfected as the norm by the D nominees.

The second was pure Trump response.

As for 'cooperative' how do you describe the refusal of almost every single D Senator to abjectly refuse to meet with him even prior to the Ford magic card?

The Trump admin is finished. I think Warren takes him easily in the general election impeachment or no impeachment. He has failed his mandate and polluted the atmosphere with skullduggery.

I am a right wing-ish libertarian and I see zero benefit for continuing the current admin. Trump has put back conservative intellectuals several years if not buried them completely. His only contribution is appointment of conservative judges to various federal positions, but he even ****** that up voting in Kavanagh who wasnt properly vetted. Thoughts?

(10-04-2019 09:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Kavanaugh "confirmation hearings" were nothing more or less than a lynch mob. I frankly thought Kavanaugh was way too cooperative for way too long.

Lol. Kavanaugh was anything but cooperative. He took the Trump approach, no question.

Eventually, yes. But he started out being way too nice. You don't make nice with people who are out to screw you.

(10-04-2019 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Kavanaugh "confirmation hearings" were nothing more or less than a lynch mob. I frankly thought Kavanaugh was way too cooperative for way too long.

Lol. Kavanaugh was anything but cooperative. He took the Trump approach, no question.

Eventually, yes. But he started out being way too nice. You don't make nice with people who are out to screw you.

Depends what you're into.

(10-04-2019 09:33 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  The Trump admin is finished. I think Warren takes him easily in the general election impeachment or no impeachment. He has failed his mandate and polluted the atmosphere with skullduggery.

I am a right wing-ish libertarian and I see zero benefit for continuing the current admin. Trump has put back conservative intellectuals several years if not buried them completely. His only contribution is appointment of conservative judges to various federal positions, but he even ****** that up voting in Kavanagh who wasnt properly vetted. Thoughts?

I don't think any Democrat will take Trump easily. Regardless of what the polls may say, people make interesting decisions at the actual election box.

I am surprised no legitimate Republican is mounting a campaign to primary Trump. Maybe they're setting the stages behind the scenes? I thought maybe a few from 2016 (Cruz, Rubio - but probably count him out after yesterday, Kasich) might consider it. And then you have some newer folks who could mount a challenge (Nikki Haley, Ben Sasse, maybe Tom Cotton).

(10-04-2019 07:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And Kavanaugh had people fat smarter than me, so he could have easily and effectively done that.

I see you fixed it, but I thought this phrasing was kinda cool.