Alan: There will always be exceptions to every rule. The existence of exceptions does not constitute "a new rule." Pretending that exceptions comprise new rules is a rhetorical method conservatives routinely use to distract attention from substantive truth.
Alan: To be clear...
The Kavanaugh hearing was not a Court of Law, and therefore standard "rules of evidence" did not apply.
In fact, the Kavanaugh hearing was a Court of Public Opinion and in that court 41% MORE Americans found Ford credible than the number who found Kavanaugh credible.
"We the people" anyone?
Concerning your reference to "mobs"...
There are always exceptions to rules, but those exceptions never constitute new rules.
Throughout the hearings, I thought there was great interest (on at least one side of the aisle) in discovering trustworthy information, a process kiboshed by Liar-Cheater-In-Chief when he constrained the FBI's 11th hour sham investigation to fewer than a dozen witnesses, making sure that NONE of the 20 witnesses proposed by Ford and Ramirez was interviewed.
Notably, Kavanaugh went on record in 2016 saying that polygraph testing was (and this is a verbatim quote) "an important law enforcement tool."
Clearly, lie detector tests are NOT admissible in Courts of Law.
But they do carry weight - and rightly so - in the Court of Public Opinion.
You know, and I know, and everyone with a single functioning synapse knows, that Kavanaugh will never submit to polygraph testing (even though Ford did) and, in the Court of Public Opinion, that refusal itself also carries weight. (Presumably, you will argue "Why should he?" to which I reply: Because polygraph testing "is an important law enforcement tool.")
Then there's the overarching joke of The Boofoon's frequent perjury... get this! ... while that same liar-under-oath was seeking a seat on The Supreme Court.
Brazen, in-your-face perjury.
Yet that repeated crime generates NO blip on rightwing radar.
Mingya!
What I saw in the Kavanaugh hearing was that the preponderance of "evidence" stacked against the nominee.
And so, conservatives - manipulated and degraded by Bilge Mouth's modeling of "presidential morals" - have grown completely at home with falsehood and thus resort to rhetorical tricks in legalistic attempts to rescue "the object of their affection" from the slings and arrows of women (?!?) when, from time immemorial, women have damn near always been on the receiving end of those slings and arrows - projectiles giddily fired off by morally besmirched men.
And now, conservative women lather themselves to defend, not only the white privilege of these men, but their sexist, dominance/submission privileges as well.
American "conservatism" is so far down the rabbit hole that we may finally learn what happens when you tunnel to the other side of the earth.
Please let me know.
The Kavanaugh hearing was not a Court of Law, and therefore standard "rules of evidence" did not apply.
In fact, the Kavanaugh hearing was a Court of Public Opinion and in that court 41% MORE Americans found Ford credible than the number who found Kavanaugh credible.
"We the people" anyone?
Concerning your reference to "mobs"...
There are always exceptions to rules, but those exceptions never constitute new rules.
Throughout the hearings, I thought there was great interest (on at least one side of the aisle) in discovering trustworthy information, a process kiboshed by Liar-Cheater-In-Chief when he constrained the FBI's 11th hour sham investigation to fewer than a dozen witnesses, making sure that NONE of the 20 witnesses proposed by Ford and Ramirez was interviewed.
Notably, Kavanaugh went on record in 2016 saying that polygraph testing was (and this is a verbatim quote) "an important law enforcement tool."
Clearly, lie detector tests are NOT admissible in Courts of Law.
But they do carry weight - and rightly so - in the Court of Public Opinion.
You know, and I know, and everyone with a single functioning synapse knows, that Kavanaugh will never submit to polygraph testing (even though Ford did) and, in the Court of Public Opinion, that refusal itself also carries weight. (Presumably, you will argue "Why should he?" to which I reply: Because polygraph testing "is an important law enforcement tool.")
Then there's the overarching joke of The Boofoon's frequent perjury... get this! ... while that same liar-under-oath was seeking a seat on The Supreme Court.
Brazen, in-your-face perjury.
Yet that repeated crime generates NO blip on rightwing radar.
Mingya!
What I saw in the Kavanaugh hearing was that the preponderance of "evidence" stacked against the nominee.
And so, conservatives - manipulated and degraded by Bilge Mouth's modeling of "presidential morals" - have grown completely at home with falsehood and thus resort to rhetorical tricks in legalistic attempts to rescue "the object of their affection" from the slings and arrows of women (?!?) when, from time immemorial, women have damn near always been on the receiving end of those slings and arrows - projectiles giddily fired off by morally besmirched men.
And now, conservative women lather themselves to defend, not only the white privilege of these men, but their sexist, dominance/submission privileges as well.
American "conservatism" is so far down the rabbit hole that we may finally learn what happens when you tunnel to the other side of the earth.
Please let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment