Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[HomerThompson]

Really. How so?

I haven't seen anyone from the left make a serious case that there is serious or credible evidence against Kavanaugh, or red anything to that effect.

In fact, when I (or I presume anyone) posst credible sources that show how utterly hollow the accusations are, the posters on the left tend to disappear, or else go back to trolling one-liners.

Is "obliterating" a linguistic ruse or is there some substance here to the MeeTwo mob?

There are two accusers now, and Ford's accusation is serious and credible.

And now, Kavanaugh's purported image is falling apart. He claimed to be a virgin into college, and rarely drink. Know we know he drank heavily in high school and was part of a crew of guys who banged the same chick, and referenced it in the yearbook.

We already know he perjured himself in his previous nomination hearings when W put him on the district court. His credibility is dogshit.

 

[HomerThompson]

To my knowledge she is the only one who will not make a statement or submission under risk of perjury.

Your knowledge is shit then.

 

[cincymma79]

Another non-answer. You shouldn't have responded to my post to begin with.

Your statement doesn’t deserve an answer and you wouldn’t accept one anyway. I gave you a solution instead.

 

[all caps]

Wow, that's pretty sickening. What ever happened to honor?

Dont play the game if you dont like the rules

 

[InternetHero]

Your knowledge is shit then.

Care to enlighten me?

 

[cincymma79]

To my knowledge she is the only one who will not make a statement or submission under risk of perjury.

That should be Obvious by now. Subpoena her for the statement if you have to. You can’t accuse someone of a crime then refuse to talk about it. That wouldn’t even work for jaywalking

 

[HomerThompson]

Care to enlighten me?

She wants an FBI investigation. In this scenario, she would have to lie to the FBI if she's not telling the truth.

As we all know, it's a crime to lie to the FBI.

 

[HereticBD]

Why would they bring in a ringer prosecutor to ask her questions?

As opposed to Republican senators grilling the shit out of her?

An independent counsel is the fairest way to go about this. Of course, people like you would have problems with whatever they went with.

Don't worry though. She's not gonna show.

 

[InternetHero]

There are two accusers now, and Ford's accusation is serious and credible.

And now, Kavanaugh's purported image is falling apart. He claimed to be a virgin into college, and rarely drink. Know we know he drank heavily in high school and was part of a crew of guys who banged the same chick, and referenced it in the yearbook.

We already know he perjured himself in his previous nomination hearings when W put him on the district court. His credibility is dogshit.

And besides "two accusers," what is your evidence or argument, what makes you believe their stories?

I'll repost why I am more than skeptical.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-republicans-should-fight/

The cynics — or, perhaps more precisely, the realists — believed that the Democrats were playing for time in the hopes of finding another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. The cynics were right.

The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.

As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.

The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.

Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.

The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “Simply 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.”

Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.

Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent jurist who has earned his sterling reputation over decades of public service. If his career is going to be ruined and his reputation besmirched, it should require clear and convincing evidence. We are willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, but so far, they lead only to the belief that this is a disgraceful episode that makes Borking look above-board and responsible by comparison.

If Republicans surrender on the basis of what we know now, they will face the fury of their own voters — and rightly so.

----------------

Any comments?

 

[HomerThompson]

And besides "two accusers," what is your evidence or argument, what makes you believe their stories?

I'll repost why I am more than skeptical.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-republicans-should-fight/

The cynics — or, perhaps more precisely, the realists — believed that the Democrats were playing for time in the hopes of finding another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. The cynics were right.

The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.

As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.

The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.

Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.

The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “Simply 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.”

Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.

Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent jurist who has earned his sterling reputation over decades of public service. If his career is going to be ruined and his reputation besmirched, it should require clear and convincing evidence. We are willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, but so far, they lead only to the belief that this is a disgraceful episode that makes Borking look above-board and responsible by comparison.

If Republicans surrender on the basis of what we know now, they will face the fury of their own voters — and rightly so.

----------------

Any comments?

Yes. Make your own arguments.

 

[44nutman]

Word on the street is there will be a 4th accuser.
Kavanaugh is one Pudding Pop commercial away from being Bill Cosby.

 

[InternetHero]

She wants an FBI investigation. In this scenario, she would have to lie to the FBI if she's not telling the truth.

As we all know, it's a crime to lie to the FBI.

If she will not go under oath, or have a statement under oath to the Senate, how can you assure anyone that the call for the "FBI" is not a ruse meant to stall for time?

Further, why is the FBI investigating a civil criminal matter from over three decades ago? That's not what the FBI does.

 

[InternetHero]

Yes. Make your own arguments.

Homer pleads the 5th.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The only thing ever asked about was what I’m asking about now. Your beef with Wai or the Senate is your deal

If you can’t find a source I’ll just assume you spoke out of turn

I found a source. Not the initial video i saw where it was mentioned but one that addresses it nonetheless.

But I have no interest in that game. You stepped into a conversation between myself and Wai and stripped the context and misrepresented what I said.

Now you want to avoid acknowledging that while demanding I address the other issue.

I have no interest in that. I don't play games where you give information and answer requests to those who ignore same. So you can either address it or we can both move on. No sweat off my back either way.

 

[HomerThompson]

If she will not go under oath, or have a statement under oath to the Senate, how can you assure anyone that the call for the "FBI" is not a ruse meant to stall for time?

Further, why is the FBI investigating a civil criminal matter from over three decades ago? That's not what the FBI does.

You're too uninformed to have this discussion.

The FBI conducts background investigation on all kinds of confirmed government positions. Including the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas' investigation was reopened after Anita Hill came forward. It is a standard practice when new information comes forward during a confirmation process. It absolutely is what the FBI does.

Also, it's clear you're arguing in bad faith.

 

[MTT]

Four accusers and zero corroborating witnesses?

 

[Fawlty]

As opposed to Republican senators grilling the shit out of her?

An independent counsel is the fairest way to go about this. Of course, people like you would have problems with whatever they went with.

Don't worry though. She's not gonna show.

"Independent" lol you shameless twat

 

[Jack V Savage]

Dont play the game if you dont like the rules

I'm not playing any game. I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people be totally OK with grossly immoral actions as long as it benefits their "side." As a man, that sickens me.

 

[SBJJ]

I found a source. Not the initial video i saw where it was mentioned but one that addresses it nonetheless.

But I have no interest in that game. You stepped into a conversation between myself and Wai and stripped the context and misrepresented what I said.

Now you want to avoid acknowledging that while demanding I address the other issue.

I have no interest in that. I don't play games where you give information and answer requests to those who ignore same. So you can either address it or we can both move on. No sweat off my back either way.

Ok. You spoke out of turn(mislead the forum)

Gotcha

 

[all caps]

I'm not playing any game. I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people be totally OK with grossly immoral actions as long as it benefits their "side." As a man, that sickens me.

I'm doing the same. And I'm watching both sides shit on the country. Thanks for that.