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

[HereticBD]

There is the fact that Mitch told President Trump not to move forward with this choice. There seems to be plenty to uncover. Got to go to bed sorry.

Great argument.

 

[InternetHero]

Why the Kavanaugh Smears Validate Trumpian Politics
By Rich Lowry

The Trump phenomenon is impossible to gainsay.

The attempted political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh is bad for the country, but good for a Trumpian attitude toward American politics.

The last-minute ambush validates key assumptions of Donald Trump’s supporters that fueled his rise and buttress him in office, no matter how rocky the ride has been or will become. At least three premises have been underlined by the tawdry events of the past couple of weeks.

Full story below:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-smears-validate-trumpian-politics/

I'm a constant and consistent critic of Donald Trump from the center-right.

Who is going to listen on the right now? Why should I bother?

 

[MikeMcMann]

I know you are, but what am I?

I know YOU are, but what am I?

Quality conversation we’re having here!

Sadly, it’s about par for political talk.

(Both amateur, & professional.)

Guys... guys... please don't fight. I like both of ...

Ahhh fuck it... I don't like either of you...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Arguing with the self-made apparitions in your head for this long should be boring by now

Huh? I'm arguing with you.

 

[emefer]

Nope. But did submit an affidavit like the other witnesses I believe

But but but
But he was the third person named as being an eye witness and present in the room during the alleged attempted rape. I think questioning him under oath is in order.

 

[SBJJ]

But but but
But he was the third person named as being an eye witness and present in the room during the alleged attempted rape. I think questioning him under oath is in order.

I think he should testify also. But giving a sworn affidavit is still leagues more than any accuser has

 

[SBJJ]

#MeToo depends on the credibility of the journalists who report on it
By Megan McArdle | September 25, 2018

After The Post broke Christine Blasey Ford's story of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, I told skeptical friends to withhold judgment, because there was a good chance some outlet was already vetting a second accusation. Even then, I knew the first line of the column I would write if that happened: "It's now clear that Brett Kavanaugh's nomination cannot go forward."

We now have a second allegation, reported by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. And I must discard my prewritten thesis and start fresh.

Farrow and Mayer report that, as a freshman at Yale University, Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to classmate Deborah Ramirez at a drunken party. Two people say they overheard something about it and provided details that matched the story Ramirez told. A number of others described Ramirez's character and truthfulness; Kavanaugh's college roommate said that he was "frequently, incoherently drunk" and her story believable.

However. Ramirez said she was drunk when it happened and, according to the New York Times, recently told classmates she wasn't sure whether Kavanaugh was the student in question. She also initially expressed uncertainty to the New Yorker but somehow became certain enough to go on the record six days later. Her college roommate, who said she was "best friends" with Ramirez, was among those who denied ever hearing such a story; at one point, she speculated that Ramirez might have political motivations. And Kavanaugh's roommate at the time turns out to have been, by his own account, a close friend of Ramirez's — and not, one infers, overfond of Kavanaugh.

None of the people Ramirez said were at the party have backed up her story. Nor have any eyewitnesses been found, even though the New York Times and the New Yorker both contacted "several dozen" classmates. Moreover, the story had apparently been circulating since July in emails among classmates before the Times and New Yorker got it, making it somewhat less impressive that others were able to provide corroborating detail.

I think it's entirely possible that all this happened just as Ramirez remembers it. But given the thinness of the evidence, I'm frankly surprised the New Yorker ran the article, which went online Sunday. So are a lot of folks on the right, including those who had favored withdrawing Kavanaugh in favor of Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appeals court judge. They, too, had expressed the belief that a second allegation would be automatically disqualifying.

But they had assumed, as I did, that a second allegation would be stronger, not weaker, than the first. And among that group, I saw a sudden shift toward the view that Republicans must take the matter at least through a hearing. Otherwise, nominee after nominee would go down to a string of unverifiable allegations.

And so I'm writing a different column than I expected, about something I hadn't fully understood until I watched that seismic shift: the extent to which the success of #MeToo depends on the credibility of the journalists who report on it.

We hear the slogan "believe women" a lot, but even its strongest media proponents can't really mean it literally, because journalists know how often people tell them things that aren't true. Sources exaggerate their résumés, underplay things that make them look bad, make mistakes about what happened or simply outright lie. It's hardly a majority, but it's common enough that caution is always warranted.

Why do some people tell reporters obvious lies, easily disproved? Or trivial lies that damage their credibility, when the truth would have done just fine? Why do they attack political or personal rivals with falsehoods that would, if exposed, end up destroying them instead? I have no idea; what I know is that sometimes, they do.

But far more commonly, people genuinely believe things that aren't true or, at least, can't be corroborated. And thus the industry proverb: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

As #MeToo has grown, mainstream media outlets have generally been scrupulous about getting that confirmation before they publish. It's hard to overstate the dangers when that filter fails. When Rolling Stone failed to check allegations about gang rape at the University of Virginia, the magazine both smeared innocent young men and caused other victims to be treated more skeptically. And when a weak story breaks into an already raging political conflagration, it not only creates skepticism under which future abusers can shelter but also threatens to turn #MeToo into yet another divide in the culture wars.

That would be a disaster for the country, and the women in it. Which is why, despite the risk of failing to say something that later turns out to be true, sometimes it's best to tear up that piece you expected to be able to write.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.e8a3d0cf6ba5

This will be ignored by the die hards

 

[Arkain2K]

Avenatti denies being 'duped' by 4Chan user on Kavanaugh claims
By Megan Keller - 09/25/18

Attorney Michael Avenatti on Tuesday dismissed a rumor that he had been duped by a 4Chan user with fake allegations about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"There is a rumor being floated that I was 'duped' or 'pranked' by a 4Chan user re Kavanaugh," Avenatti, who has said he has a client with claims to make against Kavanaugh, tweeted Tuesday. "This is completely false. It never happened; it is a total fabrication. None of it is true."

"The right must be very worried," he added. "They should be."

A 4Chan user posted earlier Tuesday that his girlfriend reached out to Avenatti on a disposable cellphone, telling him that she had attended high school with Kavanaugh and had evidence that he trained other high school boys to gang rape girls at parties.

The 4Chan user said his girlfriend then had Avenatti call a different untraceable cellphone over which they pretended to be another classmate of Kavanaugh's who could confirm the entire story.

At a certain point, the 4Chan user says his girlfriend wanted to stop the charade so they broke the cellphones.

Avenatti's Twitter account went private this morning.

Avenatti, who has become a media regular over his representation of adult-film star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Trump, dismissed the rumor again when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper if there was any truth to it.

"It never happened. None of it. No truth to it," Avenatti said. "This is a fabrication of the right because they are worried and they should be."



Avenatti came forward over the weekend with what he called "credible information" about allegations against Kavanaugh, who has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by two women.

Avenatti told The Hill on Monday that he expected his client to go public with her allegations against Kavanaugh.

Avenatti told the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday that he is "aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the early 1980s, during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them."

Avenatti also stated that he had "multiple witnesses that will corroborate the facts," each of whom would testify publicly.

Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations against him.

Last week, Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her at a party in the summer of 1982, when they were both in high school.

Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied her allegation and provided his calendars from 1982 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which showed no trace of the party.

Ford and Kavanaugh are both set to testify before the committee on Thursday.

And in a report from The New Yorker on Sunday, Deborah Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party in college.

The New York Times reported Sunday that it had passed on the story after interviewing "several dozen people" and finding "no one with firsthand knowledge" of the alleged event.

The New Yorker also stated in its piece that it had no eyewitnesses who could confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party in question.

Kavanaugh has also denied Ramirez's allegation, calling it "a smear, plain and simple."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...eing-duped-by-4chan-user-on-kavanaugh-accuser

 

[Peteyandjia]

Huh? I'm arguing with you.

Fight me irl

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sooooooo, what's Kav's stance on the 2nd?

What I saw looked promising in regards to semi-auto rifles. I could see SCOTUS finally taking a semi-auto ban case and striking those laws down. My only fear is they would keep the decision narrow enough that legislators could still make stupid laws like banning folding stocks and bayonet lugs.

This should be the clip.

 

[SBJJ]

Fight me irl

War Room PPV

Would I be a partisan if I thought you’d be victorious?

 

[Peteyandjia]

War Room PPV

Would I be a partisan if I thought you’d be victorious?

Make it happen Dana

 

[andnowweknow]

What would happen if Ford goes in Thursday, makes her opening statement, and her attorney simply says she is willing to answer questions directly from Senators but will not from the female prosecutor. Is there really anything they could do about it?

 

[Trotsky]

War Room PPV

Would I be a partisan if I thought you’d be victorious?

No, that'd make you a neocon.

 

[glenwo2]

this is still not the vote to confirm him though .. they'll need to work into the weekend if they wanna get it done before oct 1st

This is still promising news that, for better or for worse, the end is finally near for this utter and appalling circus.

 

[floivanus]

It’s because women have no agency when they drink - at least that’s the tacit position of the regressive left.

If women have no ageny when they drink then if you want to get away with drunk driving identify as female.

What I saw looked promising in regards to semi-auto rifles. I could see SCOTUS finally taking a semi-auto ban case and striking those laws down. My only fear is they would keep the decision narrow enough that legislators could still make stupid laws like banning folding stocks and bayonet lugs.

This should be the clip.

i seen that when it first came out, Feinstein came out senile in that clip.

 

[glenwo2]

I agree.
I don’t know if Kavanaugh did or did not do it, but if she comes off sympathetic then a few of the fence sitters might jump.

If the fence sitters do jump, then the #metoo movement has claimed another innocent victim.

Thus far, we have seen No evidence, No witnesses to corroborated her allegations(not even her best friend), no actual location of where this alleged attack took place....nothing.

It would be a sad day indeed..as well as an infuriating one, especially with the Conservative voters. You better believe if Collins, Murkowski, and the other swing vote republicans choose "NO", their voter base will also choose "NO" by either voting or outright not heading to the polls.

 

[glenwo2]

Avenatti denies being 'duped' by 4Chan user on Kavanaugh claims
By Megan Keller - 09/25/18

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...eing-duped-by-4chan-user-on-kavanaugh-accuser

This made me laugh. <Lmaoo>

 

[Happy Man]

What would happen if Ford goes in Thursday, makes her opening statement, and her attorney simply says she is willing to answer questions directly from Senators but will not from the female prosecutor. Is there really anything they could do about it?

You can hope. But the Senators can say "as white men" they fear they can't feel the proper empathy in asking the questions, and other things like that to out-smarm and play up silly liberal platitudes about white guys. Then say it's her choice not to answe any questions from the women they appointed. Simply give a statement, be heard, and be done.

The left wants the optics of evil old white men daring to utter questions that the MSM will use to attack. They won't get it.

 

[glenwo2]

"
"If just a matter of her disclosing information to them, that would be one thing but if they're intending to have grilling from the senators or grilling from some other individual, that kind of cross examination cannot be a replacement for a meaningful investigation," he added.

Clune isn't alone in asking for an FBI investigation. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a high school house party when they were teenagers. Attorneys for her have also pressed for the FBI to get involved. "

It sounds like according to her lawyer then don't feel a fair investigation without FBI.

In other news republican's are getting really worried because at least 5 to 7 Republicans are not voting in favor of Kavanaugh if not more. Mitch raised the question that Fridays vote may not happen even with release.

Recently it was revealed that Mitch saw Kavanaugh documents over his history an advised President Trump not to go forward with him.

So it looks like Democratic Senators are not seeing Kavanaugh complete history. It gets better he never really answered the question from Fox reporter over if he ever participated in or knew of a gang rape of any one.

Mark Judge will not be required to be questioned about his potential involvement. He only was willing to say "He was wrong" that 18 was the legal drinking age an that he never had sex with anyone.

He did not answer the question did he know of any gang rape by classmates he gave a long winded response without saying no on both.

This court choice is in serious trouble due to just this information. Senator Murkowski made her first really public statement and requests FBI to do an investigation before she votes in favor of Kavanaugh for the Court.

Mitch really bungled this up he should have pushed for a Monday vote now more an more is coming out.

Woman Rachel Mitchell sex crimes prosecutor to do Republican questions. You can expect brutal questions of Ford by this woman Prosecutor from Sheriff Joe Arpaio district.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1427657002

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...deeply-troubled-by-kavanaugh-allegations/amp/

I looked at both links....but I couldn't find the comments involving Mitch advising Trump not to go forward with him

Maybe he might have done that BEFORE Trump decided to nominate him but after hearing Mitch's "fire and brimstone" speech, I find it highly unlikely that he doesn't want him confirmed.


Also, where did you find this part?

In other news republican's are getting really worried because at least 5 to 7 Republicans are not voting in favor of Kavanaugh if not more. Mitch raised the question that Fridays vote may not happen even with release.

Can you provide me the link before I start calling "bullshit"? Thanks.