Kavanaugh hearing

I used to listen to these things on radio, but local NPR wasn't carrying the hearing so I got it online ans with video.  I also saw part of the Gorsuch hearing.

I found it interesting that Kavanaugh had a nice looking girl seated behind him.  Gorsuch did too.


«13

Comments

  • It's on NPR's SirusXM channel.

    So far the hearings (and Nina Totenberg's commentary) have been as melodramatic as a Spanish language telenovela.
  • The NPR live feed I have doesn't feature Nina's drama.
  • Your loss!
  • The commies are trying to turn it into a shit-show.
  • Blumenthal is a tough fellow to like.
  • MC Escher said:

    The commies are trying to turn it into a shit-show.




    Who are the “commies?”
  • This is a bit interesting.  Senate dems appear to have co-ordinated disruption of the confirmation hearing.

    https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/04/dick-durbin-admits-democrats-plotted-to-disrupt-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing/

    The headline gets a bit ahead of itself.  Durbin neither admitted nor denied the co-ordination explicitly when confronted with it, which indicates it happened.
  • LOL, they’ve only been talking openly about doing this for over a week.

    It’s the best kept secret since the news that new Coke sucked.
  • MC Escher said:

    LOL, they’ve only been talking openly about doing this for over a week.

    It’s the best kept secret since the news that new Coke sucked.




    So the “commies” are the Dems, then?
  • Since the 1950s at least, tool. You may be unaware of this, since history begins anew each day for the Left, but Democrat opposition to Russian interference in US politics may in fact be the first new thing under the Sun since biblical times.
  • Just listened to Corey Booker’s expositi... er, I mean “questioning”. If his ambitions were any more naked, Harvey Weinstein would invite them up to his room for a meeting.
  • Camila Harris is incompetent. Following Totenburg's report that Harris asked essentially the same question for ten minutes, I watched it.


    She and Booker seem to have the same acting coach, and yesterday she was playing the role of a lawyer who could ask a question.  The basic form of her question was "Did you ever talk to anyone at XYZ law firm about Bob Mueller or his investigation".  She implied that she had some evidence, adding at one point "Yes or no.  Be careful with your answer, sir".  Yet, she just repeated the same formula, even after he asked if she had anyone in mind and noted that he would have to have a roster of the people at that firm to answer.

    Either she had no evidence of any conversation, or she doesn't have the gear in her head that permits her to follow up effectively.  Her performance today will indicate which is true.


  • Kabuki Harris is likely to be the DNC establishment pick for President in 2020. They are very worried about the way Trump is polling among Black voters.

    And can I just go on record as saying that Trump is the Pimpest President we’ve ever had?
  • edited September 6
    This is fun.  Cory Booker is promising to break the senate confidentiality rules as a matter of civil disobedience.

    Chuck Grassley interrupts him to ask how many times he is going to say the same thing.
  • Yeah, that was weird... His monologue evolved from lecturing Kavanaugh on the importance of civil rights laws to a general complaint about those confidentiality rules.

    I think Totenburg touched herself a little bit at the notion that Harris has a gotcha. She made the point that Harris was a "litigator" and litigators don't ask questions if they don't already know the answer, so she must have something.
  • The sure do make the schadenfreude sweet though, don’t they?
  • Seabird said:

    Yeah, that was weird... His monologue evolved from lecturing Kavanaugh on the importance of civil rights laws to a general complaint about those confidentiality rules.

    I think Totenburg touched herself a little bit at the notion that Harris has a gotcha. She made the point that Harris was a "litigator" and litigators don't ask questions if they don't already know the answer, so she must have something.


    Litigators do ask questions when they aren't really making an unknowing inquiry.  That doesn't mean that the litigator has the knowledge one might infer.

    If you show a coffee cup to a normal person and ask him "Is this a coffee cup?", he will wonder why you are asking him, but probably say yes.

    Say "I ASKED, is THIS a coffee cup!".  Now he will wonder what the question really is, but he thinks you are asking him whether it's a coffee cup.  He might say "I think so, but what do you mean?"

    If you look angry and say more loudly "I am asking you sitting here today, under oath, is this a coffee cup.  Be sure of your answer and speak so the court reporter can take it down!", he now wonders what he did wrong, what the cup really is, and how this is going to hurt him later.  He might say that he doesn't really know what it is.

    A normal person in an unfamiliar circumstance can be badgered into babbling nonsense.  Camilla Harris' move is a theatrical misidentification of Kavanaugh's weaknesses.
  • Well, Totenburg was at least honest enough to qualify her commentary by stating if Harris doesn't have anything of substance and is merely fishing, she'll end up looking bad. I disagree with the conclusion. Those predisposed to liking her will applaud her tenacity and those who don't, won't remember this event.
  • Qwinn said:

    Since the 1950s at least, tool. You may be unaware of this, since history begins anew each day for the Left, but Democrat opposition to Russian interference in US politics may in fact be the first new thing under the Sun since biblical times.

    Yet Zuk swears that "commies = Dems" is "not at all" common here. 

    Question, if you really do feel that all Dems are "commies," then why haven't you taken up arms to fight them? 
  • Your baiting would be much better if it weren't so hamfisted. Why would anyone need to "take up arms to fight them"?

    *sigh*

    You really need to get better at this.
  • It's not "baiting." Garden variety Democrats are routinely called "communists" here, and I'm just seeking clarification. If you really believe they're communists, doesn't that require some action on your part? 
  • Shut up, tool.
  • That's not the part of your post I was referring to. I even quoted what I was referencing. Regardless of whether he thinks they're commies or not, why would you challenge him to "take up arms to fight them"?
  • vwtool said:

    Qwinn said:

    Since the 1950s at least, tool. You may be unaware of this, since history begins anew each day for the Left, but Democrat opposition to Russian interference in US politics may in fact be the first new thing under the Sun since biblical times.

    Yet Zuk swears that "commies = Dems" is "not at all" common here.



    Since Qwinn's note doesn't contradict the observation, you use of "yet" isn't artful.
    vwtool said:

    Question, if you really do feel that all Dems are "commies," then why haven't you taken up arms to fight them? 



    We know that no one wrote that because you can't quote it.


  • Seabird said:

    That's not the part of your post I was referring to. I even quoted what I was referencing.



    One gets the sense that Tool doesn't consider the english language his ally, and that he avoids reading too much of it.
  • edited September 6
    nbody said:

    ...We know that no one wrote that because you can't quote it.



    Stop pretending you don't know how language works. When people casually, and serially, refer to Dems as "Communists" without any qualifiers, a reader is left with the impression that "all" Dems are commies.


    Are "most" Dems commies? Some? 
  • MC Escher said:

    Shut up, tool.

    Make me.
  • edited September 6
    Seabird said:

    That's not the part of your post I was referring to. I even quoted what I was referencing. Regardless of whether he thinks they're commies or not, why would you challenge him to "take up arms to fight them"?
    Because if there were actual huge numbers of "commies" (disguised as Dems, no less) subverting so many of our trusted institutions, as has been posited here, I would expect some action. The speaker is either engaging is hyperbolic bluster, or shirking his patriotic duties.

    Better?
  • Will there be any consequence for those that broke the senate rules on confidentiality?  Seems likely not.
Sign In or Register to comment.