ok... no so obvious..uhm...obviously... definition of perjury: ..the offense of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath. q. Was the candidate under oath when he testified to the senate inquiry. a. yes he was ( see video ) q. if found that he lied under oath what could he be charged with? a. Perjury Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances, but it does seem obvious and pretty straight forward to me...
1st time ive looked at the picture. notice the tiny water bottles who makes such tiny water bottles ? note 1 o th eleft has the cap removed but none has been drunk/poured... what was the point in that ? what a watse! is that kelly anee conway over the back of his left shoulder at the end seated ? why is that lady stading in th emiddle of the doorway ? does she not knwo the fire code ?! why is that security officer wearing a hat ? i thought they made everyone take off hats inside ? poor women on the far left looks like she should have spent the day in bed on medical leave. someone should do a broardway show about all the audience watching (seated inthe picture) done well its likely to win awards.
if he stands on the side of the road, or in the middle of a park or fair ground, and swears an oath, is it a real oath ? can he then be tried for purjury based on what he says ? or only in a court room or before a legally sitting judge ?
The obvious question, dunno why it hasn't come up - I haven't seen a TV interview with a retired head of a big HR department, say. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-would-likely-not.html
I've asked several Trump supporters this. "Let's say you interview a guy for a job as a cashier. His resume looks awesome. He talks about how he's the best cashier ever, and his work ethic is impeccable, and his ten year old daughter (sniff, sniff) prays every night that her hardworking daddy gets this important job. Then you check out his references. The first one says he stole from the register. The second one said he was always drunk on the job. The third one said he had a drinking problem. The fourth one was his best friend, and said that he never drank and he never stole a single thing, and how dare anyone say anything bad about him. Would you hire him?" They're never able to answer. Because if they say "yes" they look like gullible fools who will take the word of a scammer. If they say "no" then they look like hypocrites for supporting Kavanaugh.
Regarding Kavanaugh's blatantly disqualifying performance re Ford: Somebody actually took the time and trouble to grind out the obvious at its tedious and miserably petty length, and so we can just read it at leisure. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Just read this a few hours ago. What gets me is that he is simply not a very good liar--or even a careful one. There were certainly times during his "performance" which his phrasing seemed carefully chosen, so as to avoid the possibility for perjury (technicalities), but mostly his lies were quite apparent and transparent. Surely one learns the art of "careful phrasing" in law school, and he should be quite adept at it by this stage.
Also, and I hate to say this, but Al Franken would have made an excellent inquisitor here. The Democrats weren't nearly... aggressive enough with their queries. If the fuckwit refuses to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question, why allow him to carry on with his rambling, defensive deflections--especially when one is only allowed a very narrow window of time?
They are all liars: https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02...g-about-the-evidence-against-brett-kavanaugh/ This does, in fact, appear "skewed toward intentionally misleading".
the politics and mechniisms of bully culture and methadology time is on your side when you do not have to change direction. "i don't know nuffing" replys the big fat bully in bully world this can be repeated over and over because the little bully is protected by the bigger bully in the bully universe.
Maybe senator Flake and some other senate republicans will do the right thing, before the Supreme Court of the USA becomes a laughing stock? What are the odds? Anyone?
white flight and the fear of changing directions old world liniar values of thought and leadership(single unchanging unwaivering direction, single issues, one thing at a time while ignoring peripherals) voter demographics... concepts of cultural pollitical correctness(in this case never changing your mind as that is percieved as a sign of weakness). Capitulation against patriarchal power models by gender or sexual orientation or religion. There is such a plathora of active issues on the table. Remember the USA is only 1 generation out of slavery.
Too late. Citizens United, the Gore v W Florida intervention - - - - we are in what sports teams call a "rebuilding phase".
Thanks, I had forgotten about Bush v. Gore. Here I was naively thinking how unprecedented it would be to have a blatantly partisan 'justice' on the US Supreme Court, but we clearly had five of them back then, so it's nothing new. The 'felonious five' is what Vincent Bugliosi called them, in both None Dare Call It Treason (his article for The Nation), and in his book, The Betrayal of America. https://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason/
going with the headlines...(helcion days for the alt-right) if you wanted to undermine the very foundation of the US legal political system of governance... elect a mysoginistic party animal alcaholic to the right wing supreme court as a public show to undermine womens rights and set poison amongst political support networks in the right wing to try and prevent the impending coup that will be around the next bend. this endorses authoratarian dictatorship as a power model to clear the way for dictatorship(unchellenged) in a democracy(technically a user pays socialist fiscal oligarchich mixed market ecconomy). so now all the white lower middle working class who put the republicans in power are asking why they are paying all that tax money for a group of old people to dress up in judges robes and do nothing for the last 3 years and get paid millions. the FBI are still publicly in the pocket of the white house by current media articles...(after the whitehouse civil war against the agencys) now that women have been proven to be untrustworthy liars by the senate and by the voters who chose not to back hillary... it leaves only the republican men to be in charge of all the power. which those lower middle class white men knew all along. it proves they were right trump was right and there is no place for women in mens afairs or power/leadership roles. and strike 1 for sticking it to the officious government by putting the agencys in their place and making them heal like dogs and for pulling the rug from out under the supreme court.
Anyone find a news site that's following the vote live? i.e. tracking what the vote is at now? As far as I can see, we're just waiting for three more votes to come in.
