Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumExchange between Sen. Harris and Judge Kavanaugh on Mueller Investigation (C-SPAN)
brush
(53,777 posts)blue-wave
(4,352 posts)in my mind, he's a lying twit.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)Hulk
(6,699 posts)...I think she is off base on this one. How should he know WHO all works at a law firm? I realize that's his business...and he more than likely knows of the law firm, or even knows several lawyers who work for it. But would he know EVERYONE?...and I think he's maybe trying to avoid being caught in a trap by saying "no" and finding out later that he indeed did talk to someone, perhaps that he wasn't even aware that worked in that law firm.
This just seems a stretch to me. I despise this guy, and I hope to hell we can keep him from becoming our next Supreme Court Justice, and I hope we can prevent this orange turd from ever appointing anyone else...but this seems like a ploy, or a stunt; and I'm thinking she could have used her time more wisely tearing this jackass a new hole.
Response to Hulk (Reply #4)
Bluepinky This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluepinky
(2,268 posts)so he cant claim later that he shouldnt be recused from deciding the case because he never discussed it? She may have trapped him into admitting he has been talking about it, which may affect him later on.
Also, she got him to admit he may have discussed the case with a lawyer who works at Trumps lawyers law firm. This could be a conflict of interest, so maybe he would have to recuse himself from the case should the Mueller investigation come up later on?
AndJusticeForSome
(537 posts)Is there anybody in DC (you know what I mean) that could claim they have never talked about this investigation? And to someone who works somewhere, or is it assumed in DC that everyone literally knows where every single person they speak to works (rhetorical question, because in DC, that probably is very true). If someone asked *me* that very same question right now, living on the West Coast even, my response would be the same: maybe?
I realize that she and he probably both know full well what each other is saying, and that she is trying to get him on record and he is being cautious about a trap.
I didn't like the coy aspect of the questioning. Clearly she had a name. Why not just ask the direct question, especially after all his hesitation? She would still have his answer on record, because with a name, it becomes a yes or no question.
To me, the most incredulous part of his answer was when he tried hedging by stammering--er, saying--that he had spoken to other judges about it, suggesting that he *only* spoke with judges about it. Really? Really? If I were her, I would have nailed him right there. "So, are you saying that you've *only* spoken to judges about the investigation?" Then watch the facepalm of the guy behind Lee.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,327 posts)He doesnt Willy Nilly go around discussing cases with random people he meets on the street. Let alone The President of The United States legal team regarding THE PREEMINENT INVESTIGATION OF A GENERATION.
rickford66
(5,523 posts)burrowowl
(17,641 posts)Nitram
(22,800 posts)I hope it is more than a rumor she heard.