Kavanaugh
-
The issue here isn’t a politic one. It’s much bigger than that. A man’s life is being destroyed by accusations that a woman has made, without any real burden of proof. It makes no sense. So now if any woman comes forth and accuses any man of wrong doing she is to presumed telling the truth? Is this the new standard? Is this the kind of justice we want? Is this the kind of society some have been talking about and longing for?
Bottom line there is no evidence any of this took place. None. Yet we are condemning and judging him guilty. If this was a criminal trial no judge or lawyer would continue with such a lack of real hard evidence.
Be careful what you ask for. One day it could be you or your sons that are being accused my some woman from the past of wrong doing without any real evidence.
-
Oh yea I forgot the lady that said Kavanaugh pulled out his junk and waved it around. At this point anybody could say anything and some would believe it doesn’t matter if there is any proof.
This is how the Salem witch trials got started.
Look I get you don’t like the guy, but there is no evidence he has done any of these things. Ask yourself if he was a womanizer. Why did so many woman from his past come out to defend him? Why did so many woman that he has worked with in his professional, and adult life come out to defend him? What he just flipped a switch? Went from rapist to the guy on welcome to my neighborhood?
You’re ready to crucify this guy because a memory that was brought up through hypnosis. Remember the people identified as being as this get together have all denied or have no memory of such a get together.
Ah I’m just wasting my time. You don’t care about justice. You just want to see this guy go down. Doesn’t matter how.
Have a good day.
-
You really believe him? His acting was so poor. His insectile bits were poking out from his flesh suit. Ford kept her composure while he cried, screamed and rambled about the Clintons. But I digress…this particular insect is unimportant.
That is really what this has been turned into, you are right. It’s all a show that both parties are using to further an agenda at this point.
The Democrats claim they want everyone to believe all women, but there will never be a criminal trial pursued. Ultimately, there will be Democrats confirming Kavanaugh*. This whole thing is like the police investigating police brutality and corruption. WE INVESTIGATED OURSELVES AND FOUND NOTHING WRONG. CARRY ON. Maybe the goal is to trot out just how corrupt the American government system really is. Increase the number one electoral party: non-voters due to apathy.
*It’s pro wrestling. Entertainment for the masses with nothing actually on the line because again Kavanaugh is completely replaceable. Another key aspect of pro wrestling is that everyone is employed by the same guy. Which is why I fully expect Kavanaugh to be confirmed anyway, including lots of confirmations from Democrats. They don’t really want him out. Neither side seemed interested in an actual investigation into Kavanaugh. Or they could have pushed the hearing back. Again, dog and pony show entertainment.
Whoever Trump puts there at the end of the day will adhere to a specific agenda. It was even a campaign promise, basically. I mean, good lord, Gorsuch stole a seat in broad daylight. Long live the plutocracy.
I am interested in justice, and a fair Supreme Court. But I also realize it’s impossible. I’m not THAT naive. Anything attempting true reform in regards to money and corruption will be shot down in seconds. Nothing brings Democrats and Republicans together faster.
I channeled my inner jb with this post. Who knew I had it in me?
-
-
@DoubleDD Hypnosis? A Fox commentator says she thinks Ford underwent hypnosis, and you treat that as a fact. But someone’s testimony under oath you say is not evidence?
You need to go back to law school. I think you missed something!
-
I was wondering where that came from. I never watch Fox.
-
I don’t really want to say much here, but kavanaugh has to think we are really dumb to believe him about what he said about those nasty words on his calendars!
-
-
@BShark can you throw a link to this?
-
@approxinfinity https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-confusion-surrounding-the-fbis-renewed-investigation-of-brett-kavanaugh
-
LOL @ the NewYorker. If you want to discount Fox News or any conservative news organization then the same can be said for them.
-
And I actually read articles on from the newyorker on other topics because they do write some good articles. But they are extremely one sided when it comes to politics.
-
Time to move on. Sure, everyone has done things they regret. No we shouldn’t convict everyone in the court of opinions all the time. But I’d think that the Supreme Court is sort of the exception to that. There are essentially 861 current options, and really more if we didn’t just limit ourselves to current Federal Judges. Plenty of good options out there.
I mean, can we not find one who isn’t a liar trying to repaint their 17 year old self as a boy scout? Completely ignoring any allegations, had Kavanaugh owned being a bit of a degenerate in HS and college (as a lot of us probably were), I think people would essentially have no arguments to keep him off the court.
It was such an easy PR move that I don’t know how the Reps blew it. All he had to say was “I drank as a kid. I did dumb things. Some of which I can’t remember. And if I did something hurtful to someone without realizing it, I truly apologize for the idiot I was 35 years ago. But I’m a completely different person now than I was then. And I’ve proven that over the entirety of my career.” If he just said that, it would have been nearly impossible for Democrats to argue against.
But he didn’t. So, time to move on.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
…trying to repaint their 17 year old self as a boy scout? …
In my estimation, this is the biggest issue.
When Trump selected him, I watched and thought that he had picked a pretty good guy. His credentials were impressive and he sold me on the presentation with the kids and wife all in a tight group.
Looked pretty good at the time. Now I feel deceived.
If he had owned up to his reputation as Bush had, this trickle of information about his beer-bashing past would not have seemed so dissonant.
His attempt to misrepresent himself is a very real concern that doesn’t rely on any corroboration or FBI investigation. It was there for my very own two eyes to see.
Deceit, distortion… these are characteristics that should be instant disqualifiers for Supreme Court justice.
-
THIS IS JUST FOR FUN
-
-
@bskeet that’s sort of where I’m at. After the main senate confirmation hearings, I disagreed with him philosophically on a lot of issues, but I assumed (and hoped) deep down, he was a probably a decent guy, husband and dad, and worthy of being a SC judge. Go for it. He’s a JUDGE, right?
But that ridiculous display of bullshit Thursday was laughable. He’s from the same high school class as me ('83). I know the Animal House and other movie references, what the drinking age was in every surrounding state in 1982 (nope, not legal) and all the other stuff he lied about for no reason. (Devil’s triangle is like quarters? LOL) If he would have said, “hey, it was an all guys catholic school and we were sexually repressed, trying to be cool and funny with the yearbook,” I would have gotten that because I was young and insecure like that once too.
But, like Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.” He showed us he’s an entitled prick, who was never held accountable for anything in his entire life.
He’ll get through with enough sham excuses for all the scared republican senators to vote for him, and be a useless joke like Clarence Thomas for his time on the court until, on his way home from a Georgetown pub, he drunkenly smashes his car into a light pole late some night. Hopefully he’s alone in the car.
-
Read the entire report and draw your own conclusions.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I already have mine! Drawn several conclusions from your posts.
-
@Kcmatt7 “There are essentially 861 current options, and really more if we didn’t just limit ourselves to current Federal Judges. Plenty of good options out there.”
Still waiting for that call!
-
Well, on second thought I would not want the people who saw me staggering up from the railroad tracks after the first law school party to be interviewed… I must decline. Sorry, Donald.
-
@mayjay
hello, mayjay? You don’t talk to women like they are second rate citizens? Do you throw 
in someone’s face? Boofing? Devil’s Triangle?
-
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I don’t remember ever doing anything wrong after barfing on the bed at the age of 2 months because of too much spiked formula–my friends Marky, and JR, and Poopsie, and I liked formula. And we were the proper age for formula.
-
Am I the only one on here, oh, and Kavanaugh, that didn’t know what those “words” were?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I am proud to admit my own naiveté. Then again, I went to public schools.
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@JayHawkFanToo I already have mine! Drawn several conclusions from your posts.
You must be a mind reader since this is the first time have posted on this thread and subject.
-
@JayHawkFanToo i read the report. I have to say, it is a pretty clear indictment of Rachel Mitchell as a hack.
This quote bothers me a lot, I’m a stickler for quotes actually being quotes. And unless Leland Keyser talks about herself in the third person, this is not accurate:
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Who is saying “simply put” here, the person being quoted or the person pretending to give an impartial report?
When you don’t conduct an investigation you almost certainly will not have sufficient evidence. To say that you don’t have enough to prosecute is frankly, stupid and pointless even if you qualify it, because you know this isn’t a criminal trial.
Her bosses were not interested in an impartial truth, they were looking for a hack job by a woman who they could pretend was doing things by the book. And they got exactly the show they paid for.
-
@approxinfinity I think her initial conclusion that there is not enough evidence to convict, even by the lower standard of prepondrance of the evidence, is justified just because of the vaguenes in dates. But I know from personal experience in criminal appeals that many cases have warranted arrest, far more investigation than occurred here, and even prosecution, based on accusations less corroborated than Dr. Ford’s. As she pleaded in her testimony, the date could be pinned down by investigation.
Police have historically required rape complainants to give evidence that is virtually impossible for them to get. That failure to be willing to investigate a “reputable” alleged assailant is the biggest concern (and is also behind the anthem kneeling if you actually listen to the protestors).
Were this a criminal complaint, any unbiased prosecutor would have rejected the case as undeveloped, but demanded that the police investigate further.
But her complaint is corroborated as to the drinking and thoroughly disgusting dishonorable attitudes towards women. Unless Dr. Ford got hold of Kavanaugh’s calendars back in 2012, or Mark Judge’s book, or the yearbook, it would have to be a ridiculously unlikely coincidence for the repetitive drunkenness shown in those sources to match behavior she alleges occurred.
-
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/rachel-mitchells-arizona-boss-calls-senate-dems-hyenas-10878275
-
approxinfinity said:
@JayHawkFanToo i read the report. I have to say, it is a pretty clear indictment of Rachel Mitchell as a hack.
This quote bothers me a lot, I’m a stickler for quotes actually being quotes. And unless Leland Keyser talks about herself in the third person, this is not accurate:
I posted a reply a few minutes ago but it seems to have vanished…
First, I commend you on at least reading the report before drawing conclusions on the report and not drawing conclusions on my thinking since I did not express any thoughts on the subject, pro or con.
As far as your concern, the letter and sworn affidavit was written to the senate by Leland Keyser’s attorney, so it would be correct for him to refer to her in the third person.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I see now. It’s quoting Howard Walsh, the attorney.
-
As you know, there is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer; the only requirements are that he be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate.
All of the past justices have been lawyers although not all had law degrees since in th early days of the republic there were not many law schools and a law degree was not a requirement to be admitted to the bar, the requirement was to “read” the law and to learn under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. Many justices had not been judges either with notables examples being John Marshall, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren.
It would be extremely difficult, practically impossible, for a non-lawyer to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate; the only possible exception would be a law professor that is not a member of the bar. So, technically the number of candidates is quite large but in practice the number is actually extremely small.
-
@JayHawkFanToo “…since in the early days of the republic there were not many law schools and a law degree was not a requirement to be admitted to the bar, the requirement was to “read” the law and to learn under the tutelage of a practicing attorney.”
University of Michigan Law School proudly claims Clarence Darrow as an alum. Apparently, besides our liberal bent and representing crooks (um, er, accused crooks), we had something else in common: he disliked law school, too. So he quit, and went to read for the law (late 1800’s). Alas, I didn’t have that choice in Kansas (but I was tempted to do the quitting part).
Reading the bronze plaque at UM about Darrow was how I learned that the technical definition of alum just means someone who attended. Not necessarily a graduate!
-
@mayjay even if it’s a 3 credit online course? (I might have to look at the KU coursebook)
-
@approxinfinity check unc
-
@Crimsonorblue22
good one
-
approxinfinity said:
@mayjay even if it’s a 3 credit online course? (I might have to look at the KU coursebook)
I think Clarence Darrow’s online courses did not count.
-
“The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians,” Trump wrote. “Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!”
“Trump – khuilo!”
-
That Mitchell memo has one key flaw that no one on here is discussing - Mitchell only evaluates what Dr. Ford said
If Mitchell were truly approaching this like a prosecutor or investigator would, she would have also included analysis of Judge Kavanaugh’s statements and behavior during the hearing and subsequent interviews. She did not.
Mitchell pokes holes in Dr. Ford’s memory and points to the inconsistencies revealed there. However, she does not discuss anything that Judge Kavanaugh said, or if there were inconsistencies between his senate testimony and any interviews, or if he offered any contradictions, etc. She did not analyze his behavior and mannerisms during the hearing that she attended.
While this may not have changed her opinion, not including it in the report makes the validity of the report very shaky since she did not include half of what she witnessed with her own eyes. That’s an important omission.
-
@justanotherfan One of her former colleagues, whom she actually trained in sex-crime prosecutions, wrote an article totally trashing Mitchell’s memo as result-oriented “BS” for much of the reasons you discuss.
-
@mayjay We are supposed to believe one entitled plutocrat with everything to lose over tons of women with no reason to lie.
-
STATUS OF BRETT KAVANAUGH PERJURIES
Perjury (“Renate Alumnius”): CONFIRMED
Perjury (“Devil’s Triangle”): CONFIRMED
Perjury (“FFFF”): CONFIRMED
Perjury (“boofing”): CONFIRMED
Perjury (“Bart”): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no blackouts): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no groping): CONFIRMED
-
I’ve never seen so much bullshit pawned off as truth in my life as I’ve seen in this thread. There’s a completely uncorroborated accusation against a good man for political reasons. I don’t believe her and NOTHING has been presented to substantiate her claims.
As a matter of FACT there is plenty to show she is lying at least as far as Kavanaugh is concerned.
So now Dems are moving the goalposts to now unfit. More BS for sure. I’ve seen how people react on here and that is just cause someone disagreed with your opinion. I think Kavanaugh took it too easy on Judiciary Dems. They all make Trump look like he displays more than a modicum of civility and tact.
-
-
@Bwag your definition of “good man” differs from mine
-
approxinfinity said:
@Bwag your definition of “good man” differs from mine
I had a lot typed on this subject but kept backspacing to be civil. I couldn’t really make it work. Suffice to say I agree with you.
-
@Bwag Well, you can keep calling it uncorroborated or unsupported, or you can say the earth is flat a thousand times, but repetition doesn’t make what you say true.
Polygraph showing no deception, many witnesses to Kavanaugh being an out-of-control drunk, book by Mark Judge about “Bart” Kavanaugh’s wild behavior, Kavanaugh’s own letter (signed “Bart”) describing his group as loud obnoxious drunks, the calendar, the yearbook, his false testimony about those…Hmmm, he has always upheld polygraphs as a law enforcement tool. Wanna bet he would refuse to take one?
Incidentally, Dems have always wanted more time, more documents, and a more thorough investigation. The Republicans withheld over 40,000 pages of documents and dumped the rest on Senators the night before the originally scheduled vote. Dems have without success provided dozens of names of people to be interviewed, only to run into the Republican brick wall.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee to the Court, knows a little something about what qualifies a judge to be a Justice and, after watching Kavanaugh become unhinged in a prepared sworn statement, says Senators should reject him (after initially believing the opposite) due to his partisan and intemperate performance. 2,400 law professors and even the National Council of Churches have said the same. Dems didn’t move the goalposts–Kavanaugh went racing the other direction, almost frothing at the mouth while spouting conspiracy theories and evincing a horrifying disrespect for members of another branch of government, for anyone of a different political bent, and for anyone daring to have criticized or even questioned him.
But all that being said, you might be surprised that I would admit that I do not necessarily believe Dr Ford’s allegation that it was him, or if the details tracked her recollection even if she believed him. There is a fundamental problem in trying to resurrect information about an event almost 4 decades old. That is why statutes of limitations set limits on when claims can be raised–witnesses die, memories fade or get confused, documents get lost (I thought my calendars I have kept since 1984 were crazy!)…it is just impossible to prove guilt or innocence so we don’t try in civil or criminal law. An exception is for murder–and arguably a Supreme Court appointment warrants that higher level of scrutiny.
My personal bottom line from my own experience as a criminal lawyer, as an appellate lawyer who argued in US Courts of Appeals in Florida and D.C., and as a judge for 19 years: I have never before seen someone who is raising falsified claims repeatedly ask–make that literally beg–for a thorough police investigation or pass a polygraph exam given by a former FBI examiner. Fun fact: none of my >400 convicted criminal appeals clients asked us to arrange a polygraph regardless of how vociferously they contended other people had set them up. And, conversely, I have never seen anyone who was innocent refuse to agree to a more extensive investigation, however long it would take, to prove their lack of complicity. Innocent people welcome investigation. I think she believed her testimony, but I do not know without an honest inquiry whether her testimony was in fact accurate.
Still, to me the issue is not whether he did or didn’t do it. The issue is whether his record, his conduct, and his testimony demonstated his status as someone whose integrity and temperament should elevate him to the highest judicial rank in the land. To me, the burden was on Kavanaugh throughout the process, just as it is on anyone seeking such a role. He did not carry that burden, and demeaned himself in the process. All things considered, the country can do better, and has, in finding a brilliant candidate–even a conservative one meeting every one of Republican criteria (except possibly a demonstrated anti-Democrat animus).
So what are Republicans so afraid of?
-
@mayjay thank you for taking the time.
Well said.
-
@approxinfinity Thanks. I write all that out to explore my own thoughts because I know my brother would not let me talk long enough before spraying diatribes about “libtard” and “Demoncrats,” which kind of hurts the ability to explore deep topics or subtle distinctions between fact and belief.
