Did Judge Kavanaugh

[fskimospy]

Perhaps we should navigate what makes an allegations credible because declaring it is or isn't seems to provide infinite justification for whatever viewpoint.

Actually, I think we should first work on our evidentiary standard to determine credibility. I suggest preponderance of evidence.

That’s the standard that just about everyone has been using from the beginning and Starbuck is very aware of that. This is why he has repeatedly tried to shift the evidentiary standard to that used in a criminal trial.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It’s not that it’s the fact that this guys nomination was jammed thru with little review and little respect shown to “the other side”
I expect to hear similar complaints from you when there is a D majority and my side rams someone thru with minimal review.

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That’s the standard that just about everyone has been using from the beginning and Starbuck is very aware of that. This is why he has repeatedly tried to shift the evidentiary standard to that used in a criminal trial.

A problem I'm having is with Presidential hopeful going from a book to impeachment and as much as I don't like Kavanaugh or his ilk I can't say that's right. Credible allegations, then House investigations and not "we have to make him guilty ones", then consequences including referrals to the DOJ (yeah I know but it should happen anyway) and impeachment if the evidence dictates.

Kavanaugh was never properly vetted but we cannot further tear down the institutions and processes which Republicans and Trump have been.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

We didn't have a chance to determine if there was credible evidence because that was not wanted by Trump or the Reps. The FBI investigations seem to have been shoddy and that's likely due to political influence and so now the events themselves need to be investigated, both what happened with Kavanaugh AND if there was due diligence done by the FBI and all findings presented or whether what they found was "sharpie enhanced".

 

[fskimospy]

A problem I'm having is with Presidential hopeful going from a book to impeachment and as much as I don't like Kavanaugh or his ilk I can't say that's right. Credible allegations, then House investigations and not "we have to make him guilty ones", then consequences including referrals to the DOJ (yeah I know but it should happen anyway) and impeachment if the evidence dictates.

Kavanaugh was never properly vetted but we cannot further tear down the institutions and processes which Republicans and Trump have been.

Yes, the House should open an impeachment inquiry on Kavanaugh covering multiple areas. One is the sexual assault allegations and another is the perjury.

As for involving the DOJ at this point they is pointless and likely counterproductive. As we already saw the DOJ was manipulated once to give a false impression of exonerating Kavanaugh and combined with the DOJ’s similar deceptions regarding the Mueller probe it’s obvious that the department has been corrupted to an extent where it can no longer be trusted. They would just mislead the public again.

 

[Pohemi]

Hey Dumas, all they had was 2 unnamed sources. The guy that made the accusation refused to be questioned by the FBI and the Senate (penalties for perjury you know) and the alleged victim has no memory of the alleged incident.

This false argument was already attempted and shown to be wrong in this thread. Maybe you should read the other posts before shitting your idiocy out onto the board?

 

[ch33zw1z]

If there's anything I've learned in my lifetime, it's that GOP voters and party leaders are very concerned about credibility, lol...

 

[VRAMdemon]

So..all these people are not credible?...It's all a conspiracy!

So..A dozen Yale grads and other people sat down and decided to fabricate a story about Kavanaugh in order to sink his nomination and that what they went with was something that happened at a high school party with no third party witnesses and the penis slap incident? In that scenario, why wouldn't they have constructed a lie in which they themselves were witnesses if they were prepared to lie about, e.g., what the victim had told them at the time of the incident? Why didn't they do this to Gorsuch or Roberts or Alito?

I'm assuming it fair to say that you people believe Kavenaugh to be innocent -- of each sexual assault allegation that has been made?

If that's the case, then would you say that some people -- name your boogeyman -- are fabricating each of these stories out of whole cloth?

If had Kavanaugh came forward, admitted what he did, and said something like, "I was really stupid in my younger days; I recognize that what I did was terrible, and it weighs heavily on me to this day that I was once that kind of person. I am very remorseful for what I have done, but that isn't who I am anymore". I would be right here defending him

 

[interchange]

I think there is a serious challenge here. How can there best be an investigation free of undue political influence or the appearance of bias. I'm not sure that's possible of anything in politics these days. It's the main tactic used to oppose Democrats from Republicans.

 

[Brainonska511]

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

There were numerous credible accusations and we're talking about someone who is going to a position where it is basically impossible to get fired - I think we can have some fucking standards, like, the candidate should not have perjured themselves in Senate testimony and should not having credible sexual assault allegations leveled against them.

I'm pretty sure he would have been perfectly fine staying employed at his previous nearly-impossible-to-be-fired job as a Federal Appeals Court judge for the DC circuit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, the House should open an impeachment inquiry on Kavanaugh covering multiple areas. One is the sexual assault allegations and another is the perjury.

As for involving the DOJ at this point they is pointless and likely counterproductive. As we already saw the DOJ was manipulated once to give a false impression of exonerating Kavanaugh and combined with the DOJ’s similar deceptions regarding the Mueller probe it’s obvious that the department has been corrupted to an extent where it can no longer be trusted. They would just mislead the public again.

So no investigations or hearings just on to impeachment, 0 to 100 in 0.001 sec? Even Nadler is having investigations prior to impeachment and no that is not an in impeachment investigation. What happens when alligations against people we like are made (and there will be)? Right to impeachment? IMO that's a dangerous precedent. In no way am I defending Kavanaugh, but I am for a buffer short of a rope.

 

[fskimospy]

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

There is absolutely substantial evidence that he did it considering there are multiple people who heard about his assaults contemporaneously and that multiple independent people have similar stories about his assaults. If your standard is ‘is it more likely than not he engaged in this misconduct’ as it should be for any job interview, the choice is obvious. Of course it’s more likely than not.

As for ‘unemploying him for life’ you can’t possibly be serious. What would have been denied to him was only a lifetime job of enormous, unreviewable power. Had he not been confirmed he would have simply had to return to his lifetime job of enormous, slightly reviewable power.

Even if he were removed from office tomorrow thanks to wingnut welfare he would easily land one of a hundred lucrative jobs for any number of conservative organizations.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

To me that is the cost of being rammed thru.
I suspect the next D appointed judge will face the same scrutiny especially if that judge is rammed thru

 

[fskimospy]

So no investigations or hearings just on to impeachment, 0 to 100 in 0.001 sec? Even Nadler is having investigations prior to impeachment and no that is not an in impeachment investigation. What happens when alligations against people we like are made (and there will be)? Right to impeachment? IMO that's a dangerous precedent. In no way am I defending Kavanaugh, but I am for a buffer short of a rope.

That’s what an impeachment inquiry is, an investigation into if he should be impeached?

 

[fskimospy]

I think there is a serious challenge here. How can there best be an investigation free of undue political influence or the appearance of bias. I'm not sure that's possible of anything in politics these days. It's the main tactic used to oppose Democrats from Republicans.

We should be clear about why that is though. While obviously investigations of politicized issues have always had threats of bias in the past, the DOJ worked hard to remove that as much as possible by delegating the work to career civil service employees. Nothing’s perfect, but people could have at least a modest expectation that the investigation was conducted professionally and impartially.

In this case it’s too late for that because the DOJ was already involved and conducted a sham investigation designed to mislead the public and perhaps the Senate. Restoring credibility to the DOJ is possible but it will require an extensive purge of the rot within it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That’s what an impeachment inquiry is, an investigation into if he should be impeached?

Which is NOT what Pelosi will tell you that Nadler is doing. Is every investigation into an elected official automatically an impeachment hearing? I think not. Was the first investigation into Nixon an impeachment inquiry? I don't believe so. Instead, the "burglars" were called in and once more than accusations were had then Nixon was on the chopping block.

This is not a distinction without a difference. "Impeach" is a verb, an action, and that is what some candidates are wanting. Nope. I'm against that.

Call in the witnesses, the investigators and then determine if there is probable cause beyond allegation to investigate further (that would be an impeachment inquiry proper) with the intent of passing the results up to the House. A book and allegations are a starting point to be examed further and THEN determine if a higher formal process is warranted.

Now if one is an accelerationist then heading for the grand jury without examining anything off the bat is a marvelous way to go as it will create chaos and render the system as it is unworkable, perhaps a necessary step eventually, but anything you allow will be used against you in the future. Didn't we learn that with Executive power? Apparently not so much.

But maybe things need to come to an end and we eat ourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Which is NOT what Pelosi will tell you that Nadler is doing. Is every investigation into an elected official automatically an impeachment hearing? I think not. Was the first investigation into Nixon an impeachment inquiry? I don't believe so. Instead, the "burglars" were called in and once more than accusations were had then Nixon was on the chopping block.

This is not a distinction without a difference. "Impeach" is a verb, an action, and that is what some candidates are wanting. Nope. I'm against that.

Call in the witnesses, the investigators and then determine if there is probable cause beyond allegation to investigate further (that would be an impeachment inquiry proper) with the intent of passing the results up to the House. A book and allegations are a starting point to be examed further and THEN determine if a higher formal process is warranted.

Now if one is an accelerationist then heading for the grand jury without examining anything off the bat is a marvelous way to go as it will create chaos and render the system as it is unworkable, perhaps a necessary step eventually, but anything you allow will be used against you in the future. Didn't we learn that with Executive power? Apparently not so much.

But maybe things need to come to an end and we eat ourselves.

I don’t find them to be any different but I’m also indifferent to what it’s called so fine by me.

 

[brycejones]

I think I would lose my cool too if I my really shitty past came out the way his did.

FTFY

 

[Starbuck1975]

People with actual experience in sexual assault cases disagree with you.

Those experts are welcome to testify when charges are brought.

You’re contradicting yourself. If the accusations are not credible then he didn’t do those things.

No I am not. I think the charges of his being a frat boy are credible. He doesn’t stand credibly accused of any crime.

He’s also guilty of lying about it now, so his poor judgment continues.

He is guilty of defending himself against a politically motivated attack on his character.

Nobody came forth for years’ is a time worn and thoroughly discredited argument against whether or not a sex crime occurred.

Sex offenders tend to exhibit a pattern of behavior. I have yet to see that pattern in Kavanaugh.

What the Democrats do is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not Kavanaugh is likely guilty of what we’re talking about.

Yes, I fully recognize that Democrat hypocrisy is never ever relevant. Concern duly noted.

Sexual misconduct and perjury are both excellent reasons to keep someone off the Supreme Court. Any rational and objective person can see that pretty easily.

But apparently not enough to boot a President out of the White House, and that charge applies to two Presidents in my lifetime.

 

[fskimospy]

Those experts are welcome to testify when charges are brought.

No, and irrelevant. For like the tenth time the standard of evidence necessary to imprison someone and the standard of evidence to not give someone a lifetime job of enormous, unreviewable power is not even remotely the same. You have repeatedly attempted to make it so, but it will never be that way. The fact that you refuse to ever address this when it's brought up makes me suspect it's because you know your standard of evidence is wrong but have no argument to support it.

Will you acknowledge that it is entirely unnecessary to establish that Kavanaugh committed these acts in a court of law in order to think he should not be confirmed, or that he should be impeached?

No I am not. I think the charges of his being a frat boy are credible. He doesn’t stand credibly accused of any crime.

Hmm, dozens of people contemporaneously describing multiple independent assaults isn't credible to you. Hokay.

Also I'm interested as to what aspects of his 'being a frat boy' you believe are credible.

He is guilty of defending himself against a politically motivated attack on his character.

Got it, so your theory is that there's a conspiracy of dozens of people over multiple geographic areas spanning decades to smear his character.

Take a step back and think about this objectively. Does that seem likely to you?

Sex offenders tend to exhibit a pattern of behavior. I have yet to see that pattern in Kavanaugh.

Did you miss the 'multiple people over multiple geographic areas spanning decades' part? That's a pattern of behavior!

es, I fully recognize that Democrat hypocrisy is never ever relevant. Concern duly noted.

I'm open to hearing your argument as to why Democrats being hypocrites means we should place perjurous sex offenders on the Supreme Court. Take as much time as you need to make your argument.

But apparently not enough to boot a President out of the White House, and that charge applies to two Presidents in my lifetime.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Will you acknowledge that it is entirely unnecessary to establish that Kavanaugh committed these acts in a court of law in order to think he should not be confirmed, or that he should be impeached?

Confirmed vs impeached are two very different standards. I don’t think there was sufficient evidence to deny confirmation. There may be enough evidence of perjury related to his time under the Bush Administration to justify impeachment.

Hmm, dozens of people contemporaneously describing multiple independent assaults isn't credible to you.

Those accounts conflict and vary.

Also I'm interested as to what aspects of his 'being a frat boy' you believe are credible.

Drinking and chasing girls. He also probably pulled out his wee wee.

Got it, so your theory is that there's a conspiracy of dozens of people over multiple geographic areas spanning decades to smear his character.

Never said conspiracy. The accusations do not span decades.

I'm open to hearing your argument as to why Democrats being hypocrites means we should place perjurous sex offenders on the Supreme Court. Take as much time as you need to make your argument.

That’s easy. The slow erosion of norms, checks and standards of behavior is what got us here, amplified by social media. This is isn’t about what is best for the country. It is tribalistic political opportunism.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Bad thing.

 

[theeedude]

The goal should be to delegitimize this SCOTUS as corrupt and biased, to prepare the political ground for future packing. The Democrats have no allies better than the Republican court majority in this pursuit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol, it really wouldn't have mattered, kavanaugh was their guy, that's it.

Yep. He was steeped in the art of GOP doublespeak & lying. He will obviously protect the interests of the privileged class.

Having changed the rules, Mitch had the votes all along. The hearings were merely a formality.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's fine - We can criticize that process. We can criticize the republicans and their shady shit in regards to their recent 2 judges - but shitting on an individual guy from SUPPOSED actions of 30 years ago (again, with no substantial evidence other than "he did it") and attempting to unemploy him for life over it is absolutely absurd.

That's false. He enjoyed lifetime sinecure as an appeals court judge. There was no attempt to remove him, but rather to keep him out of the highest court in the land. I'm sure he could find work in one of the many GOP law firms, anyway.

 

[zinfamous]

Even if he were removed from office tomorrow thanks to wingnut welfare he would easily land one of a hundred lucrative jobs for any number of conservative organizations.

I love this