Did Judge Kavanaugh

[pcgeek11]

You didn't answer any of those questions and instead expressed the basis on which you have concluded they aren't important to consider. I assert your assessments are flawed. I am asking if you would be willing to reexamine them from scratch.

OK.

1.) Would you also agree that, if a moderate subset of allegations against Kavanaugh are true, then this represents a serious pattern of misconduct in the past and a misrepresentation and perjury in the present that readily disqualifies him?

If there were proof that he was molesting women against their will and he lied about it yes I would be for impeaching him out of the SC.

2.) If so, what standard of evidence to establish these accusations would you find reasonable?

The evidence would have to be verifiable such as Eye witness' accounts ( not hear say ), DNA Sample, Getting caught in the act... I might would have leaned a little in favor (at least) a bit if her best friend had maybe backed her up.

Hard to come up with evidence from 2 decades ago.

 

[pcgeek11]

You do realize we can see what you have previously posted right?

Yes, it is there for all to see.

 

[interchange]

OK.

1.) Would you also agree that, if a moderate subset of allegations against Kavanaugh are true, then this represents a serious pattern of misconduct in the past and a misrepresentation and perjury in the present that readily disqualifies him?

If there were proof that he was molesting women against their will and he lied about it yes I would be for impeaching him out of the SC.

2.) If so, what standard of evidence to establish these accusations would you find reasonable?

The evidence would have to be verifiable such as Eye witness' accounts ( not hear say ), DNA Sample, Getting caught in the act... I might would have leaned a little in favor (at least) a bit if her best friend had maybe backed her up.

Hard to come up with evidence from 2 decades ago.

Can you use a legal standard here such as preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt?

You are also getting into what constitutes whatever standard you are advocating for which invites bias. The things you list are useful kinds of evidence, but none are necessary to prove a case to any legal standard. It is plenty possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt with only circumstantial evidence, for example.

Is your standard for impeachment/removal now different than it would have been during his confirmation hearing?

 

[pcgeek11]

Can you use a legal standard here such as preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt?

You are also getting into what constitutes whatever standard you are advocating for which invites bias. The things you list are useful kinds of evidence, but none are necessary to prove a case to any legal standard. It is plenty possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt with only circumstantial evidence, for example.

Is your standard for impeachment/removal now different than it would have been during his confirmation hearing?

I would buy into "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which I have not seen thus far.

No I don't think that the standard has changed.

 

[interchange]

I would buy into "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which I have not seen thus far.

No I don't think that the standard has changed.

We can work with that, but I'm curious why you think such a difficult standard is the right one in this situation. Given the paucity of physical evidence and psychological trauma experienced by rape victims, we know applying this standard leads to justice for less than 1%.

 

[UglyCasanova]

We can work with that, but I'm curious why you think such a difficult standard is the right one in this situation. Given the paucity of physical evidence and psychological trauma experienced by rape victims, we know applying this standard leads to justice for less than 1%.

Because the occurance supposedly happened 30 years ago? At some point you need more than just memories and he said she said to ruin somebody’s life/career.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because the occurance supposedly happened 30 years ago? At some point you need more than just memories and he said she said to ruin somebody’s life/career.

Not being appointed to the SCOTUS doesn't mean a career is ended. The GOP had a list of 20 names to choose from. This was their guy, case closed. Wouldn't have mattered what it was or how long ago. We'll see exactly why he was their guy as time goes on. I love how GOP voters despise those elites, yet rally around them whenever it's convenient. Kavanaugh cake from a life of privilege, and his demeanor during the hearing expressed that without question. His clear attempts at misdirection, diversion, and obvious untruths make him unfit for the SCOTUS.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I have to say your dogged insistence on defending the confirmation of a guy you appear to think perjured himself in an attempt to defend himself against sexual assault allegations is impressive.

Usually when someone lies under oath I tend to think they are probably lying about their denials as well. I guess I’m just crazy that way though.

I didn’t support his nomination, but I also didn’t support the kangaroo court circus of his confirmation, and I don’t support impeachment because a few Presidential candidates jumped the gun.

 

[IronWing]

pcgeek thinks the perjury charge concerns the the sexual assault allegations? While Justice Douchebro may have lied about that, he clearly lied about other more recent matters.

 

[interchange]

Because the occurance supposedly happened 30 years ago? At some point you need more than just memories and he said she said to ruin somebody’s life/career.

Are you saying, had he admitted to raping Ford that it should not matter at all to his confirmation to the court?

 

[Brainonska511]

Are you saying, had he admitted to raping Ford that it should not matter at all to his confirmation to the court?

Think of the man's career instead of the victims of sexual assault who's lives he's forever altered. Obviously, a man's career is more important.

/s

 

[fskimospy]

I didn’t support his nomination, but I also didn’t support the kangaroo court circus of his confirmation, and I don’t support impeachment because a few Presidential candidates jumped the gun.

You don’t support impeaching someone who perjured himself during his confirmation hearing? Bizarre.

 

[Pohemi]

Because the occurance supposedly happened 30 years ago? At some point you need more than just memories and he said she said to ruin somebody’s life/career.

Not being appointed to the SCOTUS doesn't mean a career is ended. The GOP had a list of 20 names to choose from. This was their guy, case closed. Wouldn't have mattered what it was or how long ago. We'll see exactly why he was their guy as time goes on. I love how GOP voters despise those elites, yet rally around them whenever it's convenient. Kavanaugh cake from a life of privilege, and his demeanor during the hearing expressed that without question. His clear attempts at misdirection, diversion, and obvious untruths make him unfit for the SCOTUS.

They need to pin their entire arguement on the one pinpoint that there's no hard, physical evidence of the occurance anymore. Corroboration from numerous people isn't valid enough evidence apparently, because "all these people are questionable actors". They act like Ford was some back-alley crackhead hired for a 50 rock.

Think of the man's career instead of the victims of sexual assault who's lives he's forever altered. Obviously, a man's career is more important.
/s

Well, duh. Thank you Captain Obvious Right Wing Chauvinist Ideological Standard

What is funny to me is the fact that people say none of this matters because you can't 'prove' it and it's all a big conspiracy and he jutt a boway you shunt dun dat to him... nothing but a political smear campaign against Kavanaugh. These corroborators have been talking about or known of this info for decades. Maybe it never came to light because it never mattered so much as when this man with questionable character is being considered for the most powerful lifetime position in our Judicial branch of government.

I would never consider myself a worthy candidate even if I had decades of legal and constitutional experience under my belt. Know why? My conscience. And I have NEVER once done anything so morally questionable as forcing my genitalia on other people, with or without other people to witness it. If someone came forward and tried to say that I had...if they were lying for political purposes, it would be quickly uncovered and discredited, and would not have multiple parties to corroborate on how my judgement and character had been in the past, whether a year ago or three decades ago.

But you GOP shills will just keep moving the posts, predictably, calling any questioning of authorities (and authoritarian figures) in power "crying" and "sour grapes" by "snowflakes". Gawd forbid anyone ever be questioned in their formal dog & pony confirmation hearings, amirite?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don’t support impeaching someone who perjured himself during his confirmation hearing? Bizarre.

I don’t support impeaching someone within the context of the accusations that started this thread, and I expect Presidential candidates not to knee jerk to social media frenzies.

You support the frenzied politically opportunistic mob? Bizarre.

 

[ElFenix]

I would buy into "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which I have not seen thus far.

No I don't think that the standard has changed.

Because the occurance supposedly happened 30 years ago? At some point you need more than just memories and he said she said to ruin somebody’s life/career.

Are y'all aware that the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence"?

 

[fskimospy]

I don’t support impeaching someone within the context of the accusations that started this thread, and I expect Presidential candidates not to knee jerk to social media frenzies.

You support the frenzied politically opportunistic mob? Bizarre.

I support removing people from office when they perjure themselves in order to get confirmed. I find it extremely concerning that you don't.

I also find it extremely concerning that you do not draw the logical conclusion that if Kavanaugh thought it was necessary to perjure himself in order to defend against the accusations against him that strongly indicates that he believed telling the truth would confirm them.

 

[Pohemi]

I don’t support impeaching someone within the context of the accusations that started this thread, and I expect Presidential candidates not to knee jerk to social media frenzies.

You support the frenzied politically opportunistic mob? Bizarre.

This didn't start on social media, and I hope it doesn't die there either. You either support someone shown to have perjured himself at the time it should have mattered most in regards to his advancement into the lifetime seat, or you don't. Stop with the bullshit, "well I don't agree with his confirmation, buuuut...now that he's in, whuddya gonna do aboudit? It's too late."
If that's the case...why is the ability to impeach even an option? This is the type of things it is there for. When an obvious mistake has been made in appointing someone not truly worthy of the seat. Again...the subject matter and timelines on facts shouldn't matter, it's the fact that he is not honest, trustworthy, and level-headed enough to be on the SCOTUS.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This didn't start on social media, and I hope it doesn't die there either. You either support someone shown to have perjured himself at the time it should have mattered most in regards to his advancement into the lifetime seat, or you don't. Stop with the bullshit, "well I don't agree with his confirmation, buuuut...now that he's in, whuddya gonna do aboudit? It's too late."
If that's the case...why is the ability to impeach even an option? This is the type of things it is there for. When an obvious mistake has been made in appointing someone not truly worthy of the seat. Again...the subject matter and timelines on facts shouldn't matter, it's the fact that he is not honest, trustworthy, and level-headed enough to be on the SCOTUS.

Can you point to one thing he has done as a justice to support your assessment? RGB felt it appropriate to commend Kavanaugh. This is political red meat, nothing more.

 

[brycejones]

Are y'all aware that the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence"?

Sorry not good enough for conservatives unless it involves a Democrat then the appropriate standard is “people are saying”.

 

[fskimospy]

'Sure he committed a crime in order to get confirmed to his position but I don't support removing him because Democrats were mean' is not a very compelling argument.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I support removing people from office when they perjure themselves in order to get confirmed. I find it extremely concerning that you don't.

I also find it extremely concerning that you do not draw the logical conclusion that if Kavanaugh thought it was necessary to perjure himself in order to defend against the accusations against him that strongly indicates that he believed telling the truth would confirm them.

Or I am willing to accept his behavior as reasonable given the kangaroo court partisan attacks on his character.

If there is substantial evidence that he perjured himself related to his time in the Bush administration, then by all means impeach him. I don’t hear anyone in Congress making that argument.

Beergate and penisgate...red meat for the electorate, but that’s about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Or I am willing to accept his behavior as reasonable given the kangaroo court partisan attacks on his character.

If there is substantial evidence that he perjured himself related to his time in the Bush administration, then by all means impeach him. I don’t hear anyone in Congress making that argument.

Beergate and penisgate...red meat for the electorate, but that’s about it.

You think perjuring himself was a reasonable reaction to attacks on his character?

Holy shit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You think perjuring himself was a reasonable reaction to attacks on his character?

Holy shit.

Defending himself is a reasonable response to attacks on his character.

Holy shit to me is US Senators asking a SCOTUS nominee if he drank beer in college based on accusations given credence because a porn star lawyer went dumpster diving, and blind partisans desperate for any of those accusations to stick.

 

[zinfamous]

I am not hanging my hopes anywhere in particular, I'm simply saying that when Kavanaugh perjured himself during his hearing it not only showed his unfitness for office it also lent credence to the accusations against him as he clearly felt it was necessary to lie to protect himself.

Republicans don't understand this argument.



...except when you bring up Bill Clinton, and they lose their shit.

 

[interchange]

Defending himself is a reasonable response to attacks on his character.

Holy shit to me is US Senators asking a SCOTUS nominee if he drank beer in college based on accusations given credence because a porn star lawyer went dumpster diving, and blind partisans desperate for any of those accusations to stick.

You know, I had listed a detailed response but nearing submission I deleted it. Instead, I will leave you with the following query and not entertain any other words until you respond yes or no:

Is intentional lying (perjury) during a confirmation hearing ever an acceptable means of defending oneself?