Did Judge Kavanaugh

[pcgeek11]

It should be beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction.

What makes something a criminal conviction is not based on what is being proven. Did you know that you could sue someone for emotional distress caused by rape? In that court the standard to prove the rape (and the emotional damages) occurred would be preponderance of the evidence.

As an example, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Yet he was ordered via civil trial to pay $33.5M in compensatory and punitive damages to the victims' families.

But in this case, we are talking about a job offer.

You asked me what I Thought. And I told you. Sorry you don't agree, I actually never thought anyone here would.

About OJ Simpson. Firstly I think he is guilty as hell, but he was acquitted of murder.
And about him getting charged for the same thing in civil court is BS in my opinion. How can you be responsible if you were acquitted.

 

[pcgeek11]

The standard of evidence for a job interview with a lifetime appointment is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Stop being a dipshit and acting like that's what it is. The truth of the matter was that there were credible accusations leveled; it was not just "he said, she said". And then instead of owning up to his past deeds, Kavanaugh cried, lashed out like a spoiled little boy loaded to the hilt with white male privilege, and lied (aka, committed perjury) in his testimony to the Senate. Sounds just like the type of person you'd want seated a judge to the highest court in the land.

Why couldn't the Republicans find someone who hadn't all these issues in their past and present? These issues didn't come up with Gorsuch. I'm sure they could have found some other white man with a conservative bent who didn't have these issues. And it's not like Kavanaugh would have been out of a job and living in a box. He was a fucking appeals court judge for the DC circuit, only the second most powerful court in the US which also happens to come with a lifetime appointment.

It seems RGB and I both disagree with you.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday night defended Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as "very decent" and "very smart" individuals after one of her former law clerks suggested that new nominees lack personal decency.

 

[ElFenix]

These are serious offenses regardless of how you and ski want to call them civil, criminal...
In order to wreck someones life I would think more than "your feels" should be required. You know like actual real evidence.

I'm not asking about whether the evidence was sufficient in your view. I'm asking what standard proof is required. Those are two separate questions. The only one discussing feels here is you.

Again, the standard of proof required in a civil trial ponderous of the evidence. Plenty of people's lives can and are ruined based on that standard. Your contention is that a federal judge shouldn't be held to that standard.

You asked me what I Thought. And I told you. Sorry you don't agree, I actually never thought anyone here would.

About OJ Simpson. Firstly I think he is guilty as hell, but he was acquitted of murder.
And about him getting charged for the same thing in civil court is BS in my opinion. How can you be responsible if you were acquitted.

Because criminal trials are about debt to society while civil trials are about the individual plaintiff. They're separate things. Get it through your skull.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm not asking about whether the evidence was sufficient in your view. I'm asking what standard proof is required. Those are two separate questions. The only one discussing feels here is you.

Again the standard of proof required in a civil trial ponderous of the evidence. Plenty of people's lives can and are ruined based on that standard. Your contention is that a federal judge shouldn't be held to that standard.

What I am telling you is that an accusation as serious as sexual assault and attempted rape the evidence should be beyond a reasonable doubt before you screw someones life up. Not just a Judge Anybody.

And as for what actual evidence they had it couldn't even rise above the ponderous of the evidence bar.

You can thank Avenatti for a large part of the dog and pony show and the joke it has become.


I'm quite sure you would have a different opinion had the unsupported accusations been against you.

 

[pcgeek11]

Because criminal trials are about debt to society while civil trials are about the individual plaintiff. They're separate things. Get it through your skull.

When you have been acquitted of a crime ( in OJs case murder ) I think it is wrong to be tried again for basically the same thing in a civil court.

Yes, I know that it is OK by the laws that are on the books. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Paratus]

What I am telling you is that an accusation as serious as sexual assault and attempted rape the evidence should be beyond a reasonable doubt before you screw someones life up. Not just a Judge Anybody.

And as for what actual evidence they had it couldn't even rise above the ponderous of the evidence bar.

You can thank Avenatti for a large part of the dog and pony show and the joke it has become.


I'm quite sure you would have a different opinion had the unsupported accusations been against you.

What you are doing is thinking about how awful it would be to live in a world where you could lose something extremely important to you if some “woman” you barely knew, even when you were hitting on her 30 years earlier, suddenly popped up and said you did theses horrible things and ruined your chances at that important thing.

We on the other the other hand are thinking about how a Supreme Court justice nominee shouldn’t be emotional, vindictive and biased.

You know if you lose your shit every time the game doesn’t go you way maybe you don’t get paid to be the star quarter back.

 

[pcgeek11]

What you are doing is thinking about how awful it would be to live in a world where you could lose something extremely important to you if some “woman” you barely knew, even when you were hitting on her 30 years earlier, suddenly popped up and said you did theses horrible things and ruined your chances at that important thing.

We on the other the other hand are thinking about how a Supreme Court justice nominee shouldn’t be emotional, vindictive and biased.

You know if you lose your shit every time the game doesn’t go you way maybe you don’t get paid to be the star quarter back.

What I am doing is thinking about is ANYONE having their name smeared in the mud because of unfounded and unproven allegations. Yes that also includes some poor sap working at a fast food joint cooking french fries. Even You.

" shouldn’t be emotional, vindictive and biased."

Do you think this should also apply to the House of Representatives. I do.
During the interrogation by the Democrats of Kavanaugh the Democrats were all of those things emotional, vindictive and biased.

I would love to see how you would react to being falsely accused of these crimes. Or should I say accused with no supporting evidence other than the accusers say so.

From the news: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday night defended Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as "very decent" and "very smart" individuals after one of her former law clerks suggested that new nominees lack personal decency.

What do you think of her opinion? Is she full of poop too?

 

[Starbuck1975]

What you are doing is thinking about how awful it would be to live in a world where you could lose something extremely important to you if some “woman” you barely knew, even when you were hitting on her 30 years earlier, suddenly popped up and said you did theses horrible things and ruined your chances at that important thing.

We on the other the other hand are thinking about how a Supreme Court justice nominee shouldn’t be emotional, vindictive and biased.

You know if you lose your shit every time the game doesn’t go you way maybe you don’t get paid to be the star quarter back.

The vindictive case against Kavanaugh is based entirely on emotion and bias.

Despite their best efforts, the Democrats were unable to challenge Gorsuch, and there was a lot of animosity that the Democrat leadership didn’t “fight harder”. There were rumblings of perjury related to how Gorsuch presented himself given Hobby Lobby, but those seeds never took root.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation was trending in the same direction until the Democrats got thrown some red meat, amplified by Avenatti’s antics, and all they accomplished was to shove a few women in front of a moving train.

The most recent accusation, which is already dead in the water, was simply salt on a still open wound.

 

[fskimospy]

The vindictive case against Kavanaugh is based entirely on emotion and bias.

Despite their best efforts, the Democrats were unable to challenge Gorsuch, and there was a lot of animosity that the Democrat leadership didn’t “fight harder”. There were rumblings of perjury related to how Gorsuch presented himself given Hobby Lobby, but those seeds never took root.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation was trending in the same direction until the Democrats got thrown some red meat, amplified by Avenatti’s antics, and all they accomplished was to shove a few women in front of a moving train.

The most recent accusation, which is already dead in the water, was simply salt on a still open wound.

Is there any reason why you keep conveniently leaving out the perjury?

 

[interchange]

You asked me what I Thought. And I told you. Sorry you don't agree, I actually never thought anyone here would.

I am hoping to understand the basis of your beliefs. That doesn't have anything to do with whether I agree with them. I find a lot of value in the quest to understand people different than me. Sometimes that leads to a change in me, sometimes a change in the other, often no change in belief. In that case, a platform of mutual respect may be established which is very valuable over time.

When trying to understand someone's beliefs, yes I think it is appropriate to point out apparent conflicts with what they say.

And as for what actual evidence they had it couldn't even rise above the ponderous of the evidence bar.

I am hoping it is self-evident that the vote to confirm Kavanaugh says nothing about the likelihood that he committed sexual assault. Whether or not someone commits sexual assault has nothing to do with political party, yet the vote followed party lines exactly save 1 vote. Clearly that is an extreme example of bias.

What I am doing is thinking about is ANYONE having their name smeared in the mud because of unfounded and unproven allegations.

Implicit in your thinking is the conclusion that the allegations are unfounded. That is not even the conclusion stated by many Republicans (someone assaulted CBF and she believes it to be him but is not).

More broadly, what do you do about allegations that are made? Surely there is a process to evaluate their credibility?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Is there any reason why you keep conveniently leaving out the perjury?

There is no compelling argument for perjury within the context of this thread.

If you want to start a thread arguing that Democrats should investigate Kavanaugh for misrepresenting his time in the Bush Administration, I am happy to support that.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no compelling argument for perjury within the context of this thread.

If you want to start a thread arguing that Democrats should investigate Kavanaugh for misrepresenting his time in the Bush Administration, I am happy to support that.

Of course there is a compelling argument for perjury in the context of this thread. Kavanaugh’s statements in his defense about his drinking habits at the time have been directly challenged on the record as not credible by multiple people with firsthand experience of his actions at that time.

As you already stated perjury was unacceptable please reconcile those two positions.

 

[Paratus]

What I am doing is thinking about is ANYONE having their name smeared in the mud because of unfounded and unproven allegations. Yes that also includes some poor sap working at a fast food joint cooking french fries. Even You.

Normally great but this isn’t about anyone. This is about one of the most important and powerful positions in the country. Try and realize there’s a difference between in the acceptable behavior between a justice and a fry-cook

" shouldn’t be emotional, vindictive and biased."

Do you think this should also apply to the House of Representatives. I do.
During the interrogation by the Democrats of Kavanaugh the Democrats were all of those things emotional, vindictive and biased.

A judge and especially a justice should be none of those things. Are you saying it’s fine for Kavanaugh to behave that way because you think Dems did?

Try and have some standards man

Plus this is environment your party created

I would love to see how you would react to being falsely accused of these crimes. Or should I say accused with no supporting evidence other than the accusers say so.

See below

From the news: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday night defended Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as "very decent" and "very smart" individuals after one of her former law clerks suggested that new nominees lack personal decency.

What do you think of her opinion? Is she full of poop too?

So you want to know what I would do in that situation? I have never put myself in a similar position where someone might falsely accuse me of sexual assault. I was however in a similar scenario where I was falsely accused of making racist statements when I was much younger at a previous job.

A fellow employee accused myself and another coworker of making racist statements. When my boss brought me in to talk about it, I told them I had not made any intentionally racist statements that I was aware of nor had I heard the other coworker make any.

If it turned out I had said something unintentionally then I was more than willing to apologize. The boss told me to only speak to the other employee about work related topics until they finished investigating.

The employee who made the complaint was let go a few weeks later. Turns out she had been sending explicit emails to another coworker who asked her to stop. When she didn’t, he threatened to report her at which point she started making accusations to muddy the waters and could try to claim retaliation before she ended up being fired.

So I, who knew I was innocent, supported the investigation and worked with my management (investigators) to address the accusations. What I did not do was throw a fit and accuse my management of unfairly targeting me and push to have the investigation shut down immediately.

 

[interchange]

So you want to know what I would do in that situation? I have never put myself in a similar position where someone might falsely accuse me of sexual assault. I was however in a similar scenario where I was falsely accused of making racist statements when I was much younger at a previous job.

A fellow employee accused myself and another coworker of making racist statements. When my boss brought me in to talk about it, I told them I had not made any intentionally racist statements that I was aware of nor had I heard the other coworker make any.

If it turned out I had said something unintentionally then I was more than willing to apologize. The boss told me to only speak to the other employee about work related topics until they finished investigating.

The employee who made the complaint was let go a few weeks later. Turns out she had been sending explicit emails to another coworker who asked her to stop. When she didn’t, he threatened to report her at which point she started making accusations to muddy the waters and could try to claim retaliation before she ended up being fired.

So I, who knew I was innocent, supported the investigation and worked with my management (investigators) to address the accusations. What I did not do was throw a fit and accuse my management of unfairly targeting me and push to have the investigation shut down immediately.

That is indeed the typical behavior of someone who is innocent. They are helpful. They show willingness to challenge their own perceptions. They consider possibilities that are more innocent instead of laying blame. Even when angered, this tends to be the case, and whatever demeanor and speech they have is even.

The caveat, of course, is that there are no certainties about any of these responses even if they are a very good guide.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Of course there is a compelling argument for perjury in the context of this thread. Kavanaugh’s statements in his defense about his drinking habits at the time have been directly challenged on the record as not credible by multiple people with firsthand experience of his actions at that time.

So you’re doubling down on beergate. By all means keep flinging wads of toilet paper at the wall, maybe eventually one will stick. The hill you’re fortifying is entirely subjective and self serving.

As you already stated perjury was unacceptable please reconcile those two positions.

Nothing to reconcile.

 

[fskimospy]

So you’re doubling down on beergate. By all means keep flinging wads of toilet paper at the wall, maybe eventually one will stick. The hill you’re fortifying is entirely subjective and self serving.

Nothing to reconcile.

So to be clear you're again stating that it is fine for Kavanaugh to perjure himself so long as it's about his drinking habits?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So to be clear you're again stating that it is fine for Kavanaugh to perjure himself so long as it's about his drinking habits?

I am saying he didn’t commit perjury because his high school/college drinking habits are subjective.

 

[interchange]

I am saying he didn’t commit perjury because his high school/college drinking habits are subjective.

Whether or not you drank to the point of blacking out doesn't seem very subjective to me.

 

[fskimospy]

I am saying he didn’t commit perjury because his high school/college drinking habits are subjective.

To quote an eyewitness to the results of his drinking:

Yale roommate: Kavanaugh lied about drinking

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman-year roommate is accusing Kavanaugh of lying under oath about his college drinking habits.Jamie Roche, who shared a dorm with Kavanaugh at Yale, pen…

thehill.com

“I didn’t socialize with Brett,” Roche told CNN. “But being in the same room where he slept, I saw him when he arrived at home regularly and I saw him in the morning. And I can tell you that he would come home and he was incoherent, stumbling.”

“He would sometimes be singing,” Roche continued. “He would throw up. And then in the morning would have a lot of trouble getting out of bed. … I saw him both what I would consider black out drunk and also dealing the repercussions of that in the morning.”

So he was incoherent, stumbling, and vomiting but you think that’s not indicative of someone who wouldn’t be able to remember the night before.

I know you’re in too deep to change your mind now but come on, you’re being ridiculous.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Lol, looks like Starbuck is using his personal dictionary again.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To quote an eyewitness to the results of his drinking:

Yale roommate: Kavanaugh lied about drinking

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman-year roommate is accusing Kavanaugh of lying under oath about his college drinking habits.Jamie Roche, who shared a dorm with Kavanaugh at Yale, pen…

thehill.com

So he was incoherent, stumbling, and vomiting but you think that’s not indicative of someone who wouldn’t be able to remember the night before.

I know you’re in too deep to change your mind now but come on, you’re being ridiculous.

It is indicative of someone being a young person in college. You’re basing your entire argument on the unsworn testimony of a college roommate? Who is being ridiculous? While you may find this a compelling reason to impeach, no one in a position of power is making that argument.

 

[fskimospy]

It is indicative of someone being a young person in college.

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with him getting wasted in college, I said it was wrong of him to lie about it.

You’re basing your entire argument on the unsworn testimony of a college roommate? Who is being ridiculous? While you may find this a compelling reason to impeach, no one in a position of power is making that argument.

Did you not read the article? They said they were willing to speak to the FBI about it and lying to the FBI is a felony. So they were willing to swear to it but Republicans were too scared. Why? Because they aren’t stupid, they knew Kavanaugh was likely lying just as well as you do.

 

[pcgeek11]

1.)
I am hoping it is self-evident that the vote to confirm Kavanaugh says nothing about the likelihood that he committed sexual assault. Whether or not someone commits sexual assault has nothing to do with political party, yet the vote followed party lines exactly save 1 vote. Clearly that is an extreme example of bias.


2.)
Implicit in your thinking is the conclusion that the allegations are unfounded. That is not even the conclusion stated by many Republicans (someone assaulted CBF and she believes it to be him but is not).

3.)
More broadly, what do you do about allegations that are made? Surely there is a process to evaluate their credibility?

1.)
I agree that the inquiry was totally biased on both sides as in evidence by the vote counts.

2.)
My conclusion is that I do not know what happened to her. There is no way to say one way or the other. What I think did occur is that something happened to her many years ago at a party and she was pressed into advancing this towards Kavanaugh by others for political purposes. Based on the lack of any credible evidence I would have to say he didn't do it. I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty.

3.)
They were investigated by the FBI and Congress. Also the friend she says was at the party didn't know anything about it and no other witness'.

 

[pcgeek11]

Normally great but this isn’t about anyone. This is about one of the most important and powerful positions in the country. Try and realize there’s a difference between in the acceptable behavior between a justice and a fry-cook


A judge and especially a justice should be none of those things. Are you saying it’s fine for Kavanaugh to behave that way because you think Dems did?

Try and have some standards man

Plus this is environment your party created

See below

So you want to know what I would do in that situation? I have never put myself in a similar position where someone might falsely accuse me of sexual assault. I was however in a similar scenario where I was falsely accused of making racist statements when I was much younger at a previous job.

A fellow employee accused myself and another coworker of making racist statements. When my boss brought me in to talk about it, I told them I had not made any intentionally racist statements that I was aware of nor had I heard the other coworker make any.

If it turned out I had said something unintentionally then I was more than willing to apologize. The boss told me to only speak to the other employee about work related topics until they finished investigating.

The employee who made the complaint was let go a few weeks later. Turns out she had been sending explicit emails to another coworker who asked her to stop. When she didn’t, he threatened to report her at which point she started making accusations to muddy the waters and could try to claim retaliation before she ended up being fired.

So I, who knew I was innocent, supported the investigation and worked with my management (investigators) to address the accusations. What I did not do was throw a fit and accuse my management of unfairly targeting me and push to have the investigation shut down immediately.

So it is OK to smear a Justice with unsupported allegations?

No, he lashed out due to the unfair treatment in the inquiry. I don't "think" the Dems did. They did and still are.

Then again you were not brought before a large biased inquiry that verbally abused you and accused you for hours on end while being broadcast on national news.

Kavanaugh didn't push to have the investigation shut down either.

 

[Paratus]

So it is OK to smear a Justice with unsupported allegations?

They were not unsupported. They were supported by eyewitness testimony - with all the pros and cons that brings to the table.

No, he lashed out due to the unfair treatment in the inquiry. I don't "think" the Dems did. They did and still are.

No it’s you think. Because I think they were asking pointed questions befitting the position and history of the man in the seat.
It’s a matter of opinion.

Then again you were not brought before a large biased inquiry that verbally abused you and accused you for hours on end while being broadcast on national news.

You said you’d like to see how’d I behave. I gave you the best answer I could.

If you’d like to see another example of someone keeping their cool under hours of partisan grilling:

Spoiler

Kavanaugh didn't push to have the investigation shut down either.

Kavanaugh raged about being asked questions related to his past. He behavior was diametrically opposed to continuing the hearing.

We do know that the administration severely restricted the FBI investigation. If they hadn’t, he was innocent, and the matter thoroughly investigated then you wouldn’t be seeing this now.

This is exactly what the BAR Association wanted.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/.../supreme-court-nominations/brett_m_kavanaugh/

Instead, republicans had the power to push through anyone they wanted. They chose Kavanaugh. When questions about his past came up they cut the investigation short which makes him look guilty as hell even if he wasn’t. His reaction compounded the issue.

Your party had the votes to pass anyone they wanted in the manner they wanted. They did and this is the fallout. It will continue.