Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[French Rage]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

That whole thing is f'in WEIRD. If Kavanaugh is completely innocent, is there ANY reason to "go there" with this BS? Its not like this Whelan guy is Alex Jones. He's a former SCOTUS clerk and a good buddy of Kavanaugh. I also think he's now going to get sued into oblivion.

You know they're just building to their end-theory, which is that it was actually a young Hillary Clinton with a Kavanaugh mask and a strap-on.

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Pretty much...and my guess is there is way more. There is a reason they classified everything and it isnt just for the lulz.

This isn't a debate. Both sides say their piece and that is it. Why should he get to rebut anything? Can she then rebut his rebuttal?

Dersh is a clown and needs to go away.

Each side should get the opportunity to respond to the other's testimony. But if they do that, they must limit rebuttal to just that--rebuttal. How to do that is not an uncommon problem in civil court, and given that this committee is controlled by GOP members who have been very open about their foregone conclusions, I doubt they will limit rebuttal the way a presiding judge would.

Still, if this thing is televised live and with November right around the corner, the GOP has to be a little careful how they run this show.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Both sides say their piece and that is it. Why should he get to rebut anything?

Handy, you're up first, mount your defense, state your case.
Your new MN AG Ellison will present the full scope and nature, the details, of the charges against you when you're finished.
Oh, and you get no rebuttal after Keith's done.

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

There's a reason trial courts (and appellate courts) allow rebuttal. They should allow it here with respect to Ford's allegations but enforce it properly.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Handy, you're up first, mount your defense, state your case.
Your new MN AG Ellison will present the full scope and nature, the details, of the charges against you when you're finished.
Oh, and you get no rebuttal after Keith's done.

Ah, I see. You weren't able to come up with a rebuttal re Ellison yesterday, so now you're just going to "cleverly" slip his name into the discussion whenever you get a chance?

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Handy, you're up first, mount your defense, state your case.
Your new MN AG Ellison will present the full scope and nature, the details, of the charges against you when you're finished.
Oh, and you get no rebuttal after Keith's done.

You're confusing this with a criminal proceeding in a court of law.

Kavanaugh says he wasn't there, it never happened. Seems kind of cut and dried.


If she can offer proof that he's lying, what's it matter if he appears after her? "Ok, yeah, I was there, but I didn't do this". Damage is already done. he's too untrustworthy to be confirmed to a position on the highest court in the land.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

You know they're just building to their end-theory, which is that it was actually a young Hillary Clinton with a Kavanaugh mask and a strap-on.

That's too perfect.

[Rover]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Each side should get the opportunity to respond to the other's testimony. But if they do that, they must limit rebuttal to just that--rebuttal. How to do that is not an uncommon problem in civil court, and given that this committee is controlled by GOP members who have been very open about their foregone conclusions, I doubt they will limit rebuttal the way a presiding judge would.

Still, if this thing is televised live and with November right around the corner, the GOP has to be a little careful how they run this show.

I don't think he necessarily has to go first. What I would say is that he shouldn't get a preview of her testimony before he faces the Senate themselves. No 3 hour breaks while he has a chance to get his story straight. Sequester his arse if needed in a basement closet with no cell phones and no toadies telling him what happened.

I also think her lawyers are right. No outside council female shark doing the questioning. Or if they're going to allow that, then her lawyer gets to be the one questioning Kavanaugh because that's only fair. Would like to see that!

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Actually, on the subject of Ford's allegations, the ordinary (court) procedure would be to allow her to go first, he responds and she gets to rebut.

[Handyman]

Handy, you're up first, mount your defense, state your case.
Your new MN AG Ellison will present the full scope and nature, the details, of the charges against you when you're finished.
Oh, and you get no rebuttal after Keith's done.

This is not a debate. Both sides will testify and likely answer questions. There is no need for rebuttal.

You get that this isn't a trial right?

The same holds true for Ellison if he goes in front of committee. Your gotcha isn't working. (And your didn't read my post about Ellison obviously)

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

This isn't a debate. Both sides say their piece and that is it. Why should he get to rebut anything? Can she then rebut his rebuttal?

Dersh is a clown and needs to go away.

I'm going to disagree with you here. It's her allegation. How is he supposed to go first without knowing what she is going to accuse him of, other than media reports about some letter she wrote?

This isn't a trial, and she's trying to make it like she has a "fair chance" to win or something. There aren't going to be any winners here.

She should come in and tell the committee what she claims he did. If he wants, or if the committee insists, Kavanaugh should be called to respond. Then make a decision.

[French Rage]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Actually, on the subject of Ford's allegations, the ordinary (court) procedure would be to allow her to go first, he responds and she gets to rebut.

That's what I was thinking too.

[Handyman]

Actually, on the subject of Ford's allegations, the ordinary (court) procedure would be to allow her to go first, he responds and she gets to rebut.

Except again...this isn't a court.

[Handyman]

I'm going to disagree with you here. It's her allegation. How is he supposed to go first without knowing what she is going to accuse him of, other than media reports about some letter she wrote?

This isn't a trial, and she's trying to make it like she has a "fair chance" to win or something. There aren't going to be any winners here.

She should come in and tell the committee what she claims he did. If he wants, or if the committee insists, Kavanaugh should be called to respond. Then make a decision.

If they prefer she go first that is fine. To me both sides state their case and answer questions then all is well. Rebuttal though will give him a chance to change his story and unless she has the same right is rather unfair.

If both get a rebuttal I think it is fine otherwise I just would rather they say their piece and get grilled by the senators.

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

This discussion is a little out of place in that Ford is not a party but a witness. It's also easy to confuse defense and rebuttal, as they are applied in court proceedings.

As a basic concept, though, they should both be allowed to respond to the other's testimony. IMO.