Kavanaugh
-
-
@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.
-
First let me say glad to see you survived. Excellent. Hope the Hurricane didn’t do to much damage to your life and belongings.
True a testimony is considered evidence, but it does not mean that is a fact. Many people as I’m sure you know have lied under oath. Sadly Ford’s testimony can’t be denied nor confirmed, because it so lacking of any hard evidence. In fact the so called witness she claims were there deny any connection to this get together. Even her best friend at this time denies and has no relocation of such a party let alone the incident the Ford claims took place.
No this isn’t a criminal trial. Yet these unproven accusations can and probably already have ruined Judge Kavanaugh’s life.
This theory that just because she came forward she must be believed is flawed in everyway. You know it and so do I.
Also Kavanaugh has been more vetted than any other Supreme Court justice in the history of the court by a landslide. All this is a delay to get to the midterms.
Also this concept of just pick another judge is the devil in the details. As there wouldn’t be enough time before the midterms to carry out the process of another nominee. Meaning the House and the Senate can have a whole new look by the time they get back around to the filling the spot on the Supreme Court thereby changing the process.
Maybe some would say it’s not about politics. Yet as with the case with Kavanaugh you had Dems on record saying they would not vote for him even before the Hearings started. So to say hey just pick another nominee isn’t being quite truthful. As we both know a house and Senate ran by Dems will never allow any of Trumps picks to be voted to the supreme court.
It wouldn’t matter how qualified they were.
-
@DoubleDD do you dispute that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking?
-
@DoubleDD He is also the only person whose nomination for the Court elicited multiple allegations of sexual assault, whose nomination is opposed by thousands of law professors, whose nomination is opposed by a former Justice (a lifelong Republican), and whose testimony about his prior behavior has been assailed as perjured by multiple people who were his friends during the time period in question.
Watching Kavanaugh’s anguish about defending himself, and reading his WSJ op-ed where he tried to justify his vicious conduct at the hearing, I found myself wondering if we need to help him make a claim from a Victimizers’ Compensation Fund.
-
@approxinfinity so your problem with him is that he drank too much in college? Or do you believe Dr. Fords testimony that can’t be backed up by anyone…?
-
@Woodrow I have a problem with him lying under oath. To me that’s a disqualifier from taking a lifetime seat on the highest court in the country… i also believe that as a blackout drunk which has been confirmed by many people It is easy to believe three women that are accusing him with nothing to gain and everything to lose from doing so. If you want to turn a blind eye to all of that then I guess that’s your prerogative.
-
The issue isn’t whether or not he drank too much in college at this point. It’s that he lied about it. It’s okay to be an idiot kid. It’s not okay to be a lying adult.
At this point, the Ford testimony is irrelevant. I don’t even get to that piece when deciding whether or not I want him on the Supreme Court. It is about how he can’t own up to even the tiniest stupid things he’s done 38 years ago. Be an adult and own up to the things you’ve done in your life. If you can’t even do that, how the hell do you deserve to serve as a Supreme Court Justice?
-
You’ll have to excuse me if I chuckle when you bring up law professors. You haven’t figured out what everybody else knows that the education system at all levels has been high jacked by the Liberal ideology. And good God man, he’s sitting there watching is life’s work being destroyed by a unverified accusation. Even a poster in KU Buckets called him a child molester. I would get upset too.
No I would rather take the word from those that have worked with Judge Kavanaugh. People that have actually been around the man. Which appears to be 1000s and 1000s of women from his past and that worked with him through out his career. All agreeing that Kavanaugh was a great guy and person. So much they all signed a letter.
This is and was a smear campaign. The Dem party was going to do anything to keep the that seat open until after the midterms. Even if it meant destroying a mans life.
Oh I see you watch Racheal Maddow? Yea I watch her every once in awhile. A bit to hard care left me.
-
I’m not sure why? How much Kavanaugh drank as a teenager has anything to do with him being a supreme court Justice?
Are you guys going to be this hard when the Dem party has a pick for the supreme court? Yea I didn’t think so.
Or is this all smoke and mirrors. Just trying to hold the seat open till after the midterms?
That’s your cold hard evidence? First one big flaw in this piece. A true friend would never do that to another friend. Never.
-
Republican politicians are going to work the angles on what they are doing all the way to a confirmation, so their constituents can sleep at night. The whole thing is a farce. This is not how you select a Supreme Court Justice.
-
@DoubleDD I don’t understand what you are saying.
-
@DoubleDD I will take three women’s allegations of sexual assault seriously even if it’s a candidate selected by a Democratic president, yes. I will take lying under oath seriously, yes. I will take blatant partisan rhetoric being shouted at the Senate like an angry partisan hack seriously, yes. Come on man.
-
@DoubleDD You probably watch her more than I do since my sum total of viewing Maddow over, say, the past 3 years is literally at most 20 minutes, but thanks for proving you are making up straw arguments.
As to law schools being captured by some left wing educational conspiracy, you will find that law professors are largely not part of that. And the signers of the letter range widely in political orientation. Good job ignoring Stevens.
I am curious: how did the evil liberal conspirators manage to find Ford, convince her to bring a charge that raises wild drunkenness allegations against someone whose own later-produced materials describe himself and others as an obnovious drunk, manufacture 2 therapists’ 5 year old notes, train her to pass a polygraph, and successfully coach her in testifying convincingly, all in a 6 week period of time?
More importantly, why is lying at a Senate hearing not important?
-
approxinfinity said:
Republican politicians and going to work the angles on what they are doing all the way to a confirmation, so their constituents can sleep at night. The whole thing is a farce. This is not how you select a Supreme Court Justice.
The Republicans has given into every demand the Dem party and Ford wanted.
Good God man Kanvanaugh has been vetted by the FBI 6 times, not including the latest investigation.
Why can’t you just see that this was just an attempt to keep the seat open until after the mid terms.
Oh it appears the Republican base has awoken because the Kavanaugh mistreatment. So much for the big blue wave.
-
@approxinfinity there’s no point arguing with you about this because you ignore the meat of what people’s problems with Kavanaugh are.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD I will take three women’s allegations of sexual assault seriously even if it’s a candidate selected by a Democratic president, yes. I will take lying under oath seriously, yes. I will take blatant partisan rhetoric being shouted at the Senate like an angry partisan hack seriously, yes. Come on man.
Then where was you and the Dem party when Bill Clinton was having sex in with midterms in the oval office?
-
Actually I think that Ford was a victim too. All of sudden her story pops out just as Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed. Um interesting. Especially since Feinstien had been sitting on this accusation for how long?
-
@DoubleDD that question makes no sense.
-
@DoubleDD You should not portray people with differing view points as one lump entity and then form your beliefs as counterpoint to that fictional entity. This is straight out of the Fox News playbook. Come on man. Be better than that. Talk to individuals on the merits regarding the issue at hand.
-
Hey if you don’t like the guy that’s fine. Yet to submarine this person as a child molester and rapist when there is no evidence. That’s just wrong.
He said, She said is fraught with endless allegations.
-
@DoubleDD again you are picking one talking point and ignoring all other problems that have been stated here as to why he is unfit. This isn’t about whether I like him or not. It’s whether he belongs on the Supreme Court.
-
@DoubleDD Every demand?
Let’s see, producing documents of work he did as hatchet man for Starr?..no.
More time to review the documents produced the night before the first scheduled vote?..barely, only because of other issues.
Subpoenaing other witnesses involved in the alleged behavior?..no.
Comprehensive investigation by the FBI before having Ford and Kavanaugh testify?..no.
Comprehensive FBI investigation after the hearing, including direct interviewing of F and K, and interviewing dozens of people who contacted the FBI with info?..no.
Releasing those prior FBI investigations about which there is a dispute as to how absolving they are?..no.
Releasing this investigation, or even the directive the FBI was given in conducting it?..no.
Yep, the Republucans have bent over backwards to bring transparency to the process.
-
Ok I get it you guys think he drank to much beer in college. Got it.
I see you avoided my question on Bill Clinton? lol
You’ll have a good day now.
-
DoubleDD said:
Actually I think that Ford was a victim too. All of sudden her story pops out just as Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed. Um interesting. Especially since Feinstien had been sitting on this accusation for how long?
I want you to tell me how the conspiracy found her to bring a complaint. This has nothing to do with Feinstein’s actions after getting the complaint.
-
@DoubleDD When Bill Clinton is nominated for the Supreme Court and I’m not a high schooler who didn’t care about politics your question will start to make sense.
-
Lets face it the Dem party and Libs were never going to be happy with the Kavanaugh confirmation. It was just going to be one endless investigation after another. At some point you just have to say enough is enough.
Have a good day.
-
@DoubleDD thank you for my daily Fox News briefing.
-
@DoubleDD Face it: you have no answers to the specifics approx and I have been attempting to bring up with you. Look at our posts, look at yours. We are discussing facts; you are making ideological attacks on other people.
We win!
-
DoubleDD said:
Lets face it the Dem party and Libs were never going to be happy with the Kavanaugh confirmation. It was just going to be one endless investigation after another. At some point you just have to say enough is enough.
Have a good day.
Funny, I don’t see Democrats penalizing their caucus members that would confirm him unlike what happened with Merrick Garland. Weird.
-
@DoubleDD don’t forget he threw ice at someone !!
-
approxinfinity said:
@Woodrow I have a problem with him lying under oath. To me that’s a disqualifier from taking a lifetime seat on the highest court in the country… i also believe that as a blackout drunk which has been confirmed by many people It is easy to believe three women that are accusing him with nothing to gain and everything to lose from doing so. If you want to turn a blind eye to all of that then I guess that’s your prerogative.
He can’t even resist lying in a fake apology.
-
I want you guys to ask yourself a question. You don’t have to answer here. And I mean this not as a snark but I just hope you have a few instances that come to mind. I want you to ask yourself “when have I disagreed with Fox News?” I can ask myself the same of any news source I frequent and I have examples.
-
mayjay said:
@DoubleDD You probably watch her more than I do since my sum total of viewing Maddow over, say, the past 3 years is literally at most 20 minutes, but thanks for proving you are making up straw arguments.
As to law schools being captured by some left wing educational conspiracy, you will find that law professors are largely not part of that. And the signers of the letter range widely in political orientation. Good job ignoring Stevens.
I am curious: how did the evil liberal conspirators manage to find Ford, convince her to bring a charge that raises wild drunkenness allegations against someone whose own later-produced materials describe himself and others as an obnovious drunk, manufacture 2 therapists’ 5 year old notes, train her to pass a polygraph, and successfully coach her in testifying convincingly, all in a 6 week period of time?
More importantly, why is lying at a Senate hearing not important?
They even set up psychology sessions many years ago because they have a time machine and knew this nomination was coming. Very ingenious, poor Republicans never stood a chance with the Democrats having a time machine.
-
mayjay said:
@DoubleDD Every demand?
Let’s see, producing documents of work he did as hatchet man for Starr?..no.
More time to review the documents produced the night before the first scheduled vote?..barely, only because of other issues.
Subpoenaing other witnesses involved in the alleged behavior?..no.
Comprehensive investigation by the FBI before having Ford and Kavanaugh testify?..no.
Comprehensive FBI investigation after the hearing, including direct interviewing of F and K, and interviewing dozens of people who contacted the FBI with info?..no.
Releasing those prior FBI investigations about which there is a dispute as to how absolving they are?..no.
Releasing this investigation, or even the directive the FBI was given in conducting it?..no.
Yep, the Republucans have bent over backwards to bring transparency to the process.
Looks like no answers for this one…
-
DoubleDD said:
I’m not sure why? How much Kavanaugh drank as a teenager has anything to do with him being a supreme court Justice?
Are you guys going to be this hard when the Dem party has a pick for the supreme court? Yea I didn’t think so.
Or is this all smoke and mirrors. Just trying to hold the seat open till after the midterms?
I’m as much of a moderate as anyone on this board. I just posted in another thread about how much I like Trump’s tariffs.
So quit trying to put me in a box when I am as objective as anyone on this board. I will absolutely criticize any Supreme Court Justice Candidate, conservative or liberal, for lying. I have made other posts on this subject that have said if he was just honest about being a teenager who drank this would have moved right on through.
To be clear, I don’t give a shit what he lied about. I care that he lied. On the stand, under oath… When he is supposed to be one of 9 people in this country in a position of pure integrity. The fact that you could care less if he is a liar says everything about you and the Republican’s that are backing him. You don’t give a shit about the integrity of the Supreme Court. You just care that the Republicans get a win. And that is the problem with the two party system.
-
So look, I’m in favor of them moving on to the next candidate when that person will be just as much of a Republican attack dog. This isn’t about politics for me, it’s about the fact that he is a pathological liar.
-
Why Kavanaugh? That’s the real question for Republicans here. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the only conservative judge that could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There are at least two dozen justices out there with the type of background, as well as being very conservative in their rulings, that they could easily take Brett Kavanaugh’s place.
The GOP could have asked the President to pull the Kavanaugh nomination the instant the allegations surfaced and confirmed another conservative judge, even without any Democratic votes because the GOP has the majority. Instead, they insist that it has to be Kavanaugh despite the issues that have arisen, and despite the backlash it is causing, and despite his own handling of this.
When Clarence Thomas faced harassment allegations, you did not see him fly off the handle and go on an explosive, angry rant during his confirmation hearings.
Again, I ask simply - Why Kavanaugh? The GOP wants a conservative court. There are other judges that would be just as conservative, and some that would likely be even more conservative than Kavanaugh. If the goal is simply a conservative majority on the court, there are probably 20 other judges out there that could accomplish that goal.
So why Brett Kavanaugh?
-
John Cornyn is a piece of work.
“What good that could come out of this is if more women come forward with [allegations of sexual assault]”… So they too can be ignored.
-
Woodrow said:
@DoubleDD don’t forget he threw ice at someone !!
Yea all common sense goes out the window with these guys. But they are great KU basketball fans.
Funny thing he admitted under oath that he drank to much at times as a teenager. Yet somehow he lied? Just another claim without any evidence. I guess.
-
C-SPAN is showing Dick Durbins response, CNN and Fox are not
-
Its a good question you ask. Can’t say I really know. Though I can say contrary to popular belief by many among here. That Kavanaugh was more than qualified to be a supreme court justice. His judicial record is quite good, and is respected by many of his profession from both sides of the aisle.
My guess is the timing of the nominee and the political perception that would follow. Remember the Ford allegations didn’t break until he was about to be confirmed. With midterms coming not sure the Reps wanted to take the chance of starting over with a new nominee. As they were fearful of losing control of the House and the Senate. Making it impossible for a Trump nominee from ever making it to the Supreme Court.
-
Like Durbin said, according to the Republican narrative Ford is both a credible person and this is also a smear campaign. She’s either telling the truth or she isn’t. But they don’t need to choose which it is because they know Republican voters don’t care. Somehow Ford is credible but Kavanaugh is a good man that doesn’t lie. Its all magic.
-
To each it’s own. If you want to punish a person without any evidence and solely of the mere testimony of one person. Then that is your prerogative.
-
@DoubleDD do you know the following terms, boofing, Devil’s Triangle, and fffff?
-
@DoubleDD there are glaring omissions in your world view.
