• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feingold: 'Clear Evidence' Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath!

bubbabgone said:
Not from the Huffington Post piece written by Russ Feingold (that's quite a a two-fer) but from the POLITICO piece Feingold referenced ...

"Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee. Democrats say the documents show Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming about his role in the Pickering confirmation, though the judge's defenders say he was truthful and not obligated to elaborate."​

And the same thing happened with Feingold's other accusation about stolen documents. This time referencing the NYT ...

"Judge Kavanaugh reiterated that he had no knowledge that Mr. Miranda had infiltrated Democratic files, saying he likely assumed that the Republican staff was getting information from friends who were Democratic staff members and nothing had raised red flags at the time."​

Now why would Feingold not just include that relevant text in his own piece?

Russ Feingold and The Huffington Post ...
th
Click to expand...

"Nothing in the emails contradicts Kavanaugh's testimony" is a way of saying he was "technically" not lying but still dishonest.

The claim that he assumed that Mr. Miranda got the information by some other means is a claim of ignorance. Kavanaugh is a highly intelligent man. It's unlikely that he wasn't aware of the source.

If Kavanaugh is dishonest he certainly shouldn't be on the court.
 
ludin said:
feingold is a liberal hack of a senator. He lied because i say he lied.

this is what we call a circular logic fallacy. I am right because i say i am right.
Feingold's opinion of whether he lied or not is irrelevant.

feingold is far from bias or judging whether someone lied.
PS lying never has barred someone from office.
otherwise feingold would have never been able to be elected.

Neither would anyone else.

Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/kavanaugh-emails-controversial-nomination-817798

so why is feingold lying?

hmmm interesting isn't it.
Click to expand...

I think Feingold has major issues with BK being a Roman Catholic.
 
Nap said:
I had a couple of issues with his article:
#1 He claims that Kavanaugh lied about not being a part of Pickering's 2001 nomination and his evidence is emails that show Kavanaugh was the primary handler of the eventual 2003 renomination of Pickering. (While looking this up, I found something interesting in the fact that Democrats effectively tried to give him the Garland treatment by using the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote). Just because he was involved in the 2nd nomination, it doesn't mean he was involved with the first.
Click to expand...

How is a filibuster equivalent to Garland? There was no filibuster for Garland, there was no hearing or a vote. Not seeing the comparison.

I'll have to review the details and get back to you on your point.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You are asking for a rebuttal of an opinion article. An opinion is not rebutted, it is disagreed with by a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...


My reply was to this comment:
ajn678 wrote:

Anyone that posts anything from Huff Po is automatically disqualified from ever being seen as someone worth engaging with.
Click to expand...

That's an incompetent argument, given that the writer was not staff and it was a former US Senator. Of course, that doesn't automatically
mean Feingold is right, but it's still a BS argument he made.

Surely you can rebut the writer's claims, just do it. If it's an opinion, just rebut the argument he makes, point out any errors of fact, errors of logic, wrong interpretation of events/data, etc., But to reject it because it's published in HuffPo is a BS argument.
 
OscarLevant said:
My reply was to this comment:


That's an incompetent argument, given that the writer was not staff and it was a former US Senator. Of course, that doesn't automatically
mean Feingold is right, but it's still a BS argument he made.

Surely you can rebut the writer's claims, just do it. If it's an opinion, just rebut the argument he makes, point out any errors of fact, errors of logic, wrong interpretation of events/data, etc., But to reject it because it's published in HuffPo is a BS argument.
Click to expand...

It is also a BS argument to demand rebuttal of an opinion piece, knowing full well it is opinion.
 
marke said:
More leftist loons are coming out of their closets to try to derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Of course dedicated leftist liars for their leftist cause will call good men liars if that gains them traction in keeping those good men from becoming effective servants in helping deliver America from ungodly godless hedonism.
Click to expand...


Drivel.
 
NotreDame said:
Words matter...Kavanaugh used the word “primarily.” A reasonable argument can be made his contribution did not constitute as “primarily handling” Pickering’s nomination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Then Kavanaugh should have said so, it could have been a qualified yes, and not outright lie that he did not.
 
ajn678 said:
My initial post still stands. Anyone that would willingly use a Huff Po piece as proof of anything is at best ignorant.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, that was textbook example of the type of comment someone who is ignorant would make!


Moreover, it was not offered as "proof" of anything, my OP just gave my sentiment, and left the article up for debate. Projecting stuff into someone's comment that isn't actually there and cannot even be reasonably inferred indicates a sloppy mind.
 
ludin said:
feingold is a liberal hack of a senator. He lied because i say he lied.

this is what we call a circular logic fallacy. I am right because i say i am right.
Feingold's opinion of whether he lied or not is irrelevant.

feingold is far from bias or judging whether someone lied.
PS lying never has barred someone from office.
otherwise feingold would have never been able to be elected.

Neither would anyone else.

Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/kavanaugh-emails-controversial-nomination-817798

so why is feingold lying?

hmmm interesting isn't it.
Click to expand...




"Liberal hack" is an incompetent argument. One could say that about anyone one disagrees with.

Nor did I assert Feingold was correct merely because he said it, so there is no "logical fallacy" as no point of logic, fallacious or otherwise, was offered.


The idea of (paraphrased ) "nothing in the emails show that he lied" , the point dems are making is that while technically true, Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming about his involvement with pickering, and we don't agree with repubs that (paraphrased) "he didn't have to elaborate the precise degree of involvement with Pickering". The point is, he is applying for a job on the highest court of the land, and, therefore, we expect better. What Feingold is essentially saying, rightly or wrongly, is that for a SCOTUS appointment, you are lying if you are "less than truthful," there is no middle ground. For a SCOTUS appointment, there is no room for "fibs" or "white lies" or half truths, etc. We expect better. So, I would concur with that position.
 
I've yet to hear a single person explain the following:

In another example, Kavanaugh had worked to advance multiple controversial judicial nominations from President George W. Bush during a time when a Republican Senate staffer named Manuel Miranda accessed and downloaded thousands of computer files belonging to Democratic senators. Because Kavanaugh could have been in receipt of the stolen documents, he was grilled by senators of both parties on the matter at his first confirmation hearing in 2004 and he denied any involvement.

But emails released this year show that Kavanaugh received material from numerous emails, draft letters and memos laying out the legal arguments Democrats were going to make regarding Bush’s judicial nominees, including talking points written by a staffer to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). One email even had the subject line “Spying” on it. Kavanaugh not only received that message, which mentioned a “mole,” but forwarded it to Gonzales. Leahy asked Kavanaugh about this regrettable episode in the 2004 confirmation hearing, and Kavanaugh’s responses were both unsatisfying and evasive.
Click to expand...

I'm open to interpretations, and I'm open to a fuller explanation because maybe I don't have all the facts. But if he received numerous emails with subject lines like "mole" and "spying" and then testified under oath that he was not involved in it in any way and didn't know about it seems to be a pretty incredulous claim and seems to be an obvious lie. Can anyone explain to me how this is being misrepresented or how I'm misunderstanding the issue at hand?
 
OscarLevant said:
How is a filibuster equivalent to Garland? There was no filibuster for Garland, there was no hearing or a vote. Not seeing the comparison.

I'll have to review the details and get back to you on your point.
Click to expand...

They used the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote, McConnell refused to consider the nomination and did not allow an up or down vote. It is effectively the same as the whole point is to derail a nomination and prevent them from being seated. The only difference is Democrats failed.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I've yet to hear a single person explain the following:



I'm open to interpretations, and I'm open to a fuller explanation because maybe I don't have all the facts. But if he received numerous emails with subject lines like "mole" and "spying" and then testified under oath that he was not involved in it in any way and didn't know about it seems to be a pretty incredulous claim and seems to be an obvious lie. Can anyone explain to me how this is being misrepresented or how I'm misunderstanding the issue at hand?
Click to expand...

Just because he recieved emails does not mean he was involved in the hacking or knowingly recieved emails that were hacked. As you stated in your post, the emails were marked as being from a "mole" or from "spying", in order to prove he lied you would need an email that stated they were documents that were hacked. He has plausible deniability that the information was obtained through traditional political measures.

Edit: Also, if this were an obvious lie then he would be on trial for perjury. So it is pretty obvious there isn't a case here as he would already be charged.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
They used the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote, McConnell refused to consider the nomination and did not allow an up or down vote. It is effectively the same as the whole point is to derail a nomination and prevent them from being seated. The only difference is Democrats failed.
Click to expand...

Garland was nominated. McConnell refused a hearing and a vote.

What filibuster are you talking about? With Garland there was no filibuster as there was no vote. You seem to be confusing not allowing a vote on the floor with a filibuster. If there were a filibuster they could have invoked cloture and tried for a two-thirds vote to break it. But it's all moot because McConnell didn't allow a hearing let alone taking it to the floor for a vote
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
Just because he recieved emails does not mean he was involved in the hacking or knowingly recieved emails that were hacked. As you stated in your post, the emails were marked as being from a "mole" or from "spying", in order to prove he lied you would need an email that stated they were documents that were hacked. He has plausible deniability that the information was obtained through traditional political measures.

Edit: Also, if this were an obvious lie then he would be on trial for perjury. So it is pretty obvious there isn't a case here as he would already be charged.
Click to expand...

The emails included democrat memos , notes , drafts of letters etc. He even forwarded some of these emails, one oc which was titled "mole" etc.

I would think an intelligent person (which he obviously is) could deduce that numerous emails containing phrases and headings like "mole" and "spying" that also contain opposition memos, drafts of letters, notes etc are being taken somehow from the opposition. Along with that, he didn't testify merely that he didn't do any hacking or was involved in stealing the info, he testified that he had never even known or suspected that anything had been taken from the opposition.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The emails included democrat memos , notes , drafts of letters etc. He even forwarded some of these emails, one oc which was titled "mole" etc.

I would think an intelligent person (which he obviously is) could deduce that numerous emails containing phrases and headings like "mole" and "spying" that also contain opposition memos, drafts of letters, notes etc are being taken somehow from the opposition. Along with that, he didn't testify merely that he didn't do any hacking or was involved in stealing the info, he testified that he had never even known or suspected that anything had been taken from the opposition.
Click to expand...

Do you have a transcript of the questions and Kavanaugh's answers? From the article, it doesn't appear that way. As I said earlier, if it had been an obvious lie then he would already be brought up on charges for perjury, so obviously there doesn't appear to be a case there to prove he lied.
 
OscarLevant said:
Garland was nominated. McConnell refused a hearing and a vote.

What filibuster are you talking about? With Garland there was no filibuster as there was no vote. You seem to be confusing not allowing a vote on the floor with a filibuster. If there were a filibuster they could have invoked cloture and tried for a two-thirds vote to break it. But it's all moot because McConnell didn't allow a hearing let alone taking it to the floor for a vote
Click to expand...

I was talking about the filibuster Democrats used to try and prevent Pickering from recieving an up or down vote.
 
DamnYankee said:
He must be exactly what my country is looking for.
Click to expand...

Really? Where are you from? Wherever, if he's proven a liar, you can have him. There is no room for liars on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here in the USA we're going to give Ford AND Kavanaugh a chance to prove there veracity before deciding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom