Did Judge Kavanaugh

[interchange]

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.

We should also talk about that, but I'm not sure that's much help to the present situation. Unless you have other ideas, I don't see opportunity to restore credibility to the DOJ until the next administration at least.

I would hope something else could be done to investigate concerns over Kavanaugh in a more impartial manner before then, but I'm not certain that's the case.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Say as a hypothetical - You go into a coffee shop to get a coffee and check your email. You find a place to sit at a row of bar stool's. You notice as your sitting down that there is a guy a few empty seats away.

Your drinking your coffee and sending a few emails, and about three minutes later, that guys scoots down few seats next to you. you can feel him staring, so you look over and say hello. He glances down, and so do you. He has his dick out and is masturbating in this coffee shop. You get up horrified, tell the staff, and leave.

So...as far as I can tell, Today's Republicans would support this guy if nominated to the Supreme Court, because (1) you didn’t report him to the police, (2) you don’t have any hard evidence that this happened, (3) Your not going to take it to a reporter, and the only other persons who knows this happened is a couple cashiers that don't know you.

So...automatically - you are NOT believable. After all, we can’t let these unproven allegations get in the way of this man’s career path.

Thank goodness your not a woman, because then I'd you'd be accused of being not believable and both partisan and hysterical.... and you were kind of asking for it because you went into a coffee shop alone with shorts and a tank top on.

 

[VRAMdemon]

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

Bad thing.

So...why do you think he didn't admit to this behavior and just apologize?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't see opportunity to restore credibility to the DOJ until the next administration at least.

Sad but true. I'm confident that there are many people in the DOJ & FBI resisting the politicization of their work. That's true of other departments as well, I'm sure.

 

[fskimospy]

We should also talk about that, but I'm not sure that's much help to the present situation. Unless you have other ideas, I don't see opportunity to restore credibility to the DOJ until the next administration at least.

I would hope something else could be done to investigate concerns over Kavanaugh in a more impartial manner before then, but I'm not certain that's the case.

The closest we could probably come would be for the DOJ to do basically what I mentioned, to create a team of career civil service people to investigate it who report directly to the senate judiciary committee and do so in a way that both parties have equal input on the final report. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think the average person would be reasonably confident in findings arrived at that way.

There is a zero percent chance this will happen, unfortunately, but it's because they don't want it to happen.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So...why do you think he didn't admit to this behavior and just apologize?

Could be many reasons. Perhaps he doesn’t recall the events the same way. Maybe he was so drunk that he genuinely doesn’t recall the incidents. Maybe he doesn’t feel like he is accountable to the social media mob. Maybe he saw what happened to Al Franken and knew he wasn’t going to get a fair assessment by being gracious, and decided to fight.

 

[Brainonska511]

Could be many reasons. Perhaps he doesn’t recall the events the same way. Maybe he was so drunk that he genuinely doesn’t recall the incidents. Maybe he doesn’t feel like he is accountable to the social media mob. Maybe he saw what happened to Al Franken and knew he wasn’t going to get a fair assessment by being gracious, and decided to fight.

Why are your standards for public officials so low?

 

[Jhhnn]

Could be many reasons. Perhaps he doesn’t recall the events the same way. Maybe he was so drunk that he genuinely doesn’t recall the incidents. Maybe he doesn’t feel like he is accountable to the social media mob. Maybe he saw what happened to Al Franken and knew he wasn’t going to get a fair assessment by being gracious, and decided to fight.

Or maybe it was narcissistic lashing out that worked. Happens all the time.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why are your standards for public officials so low?

My standards for due process are high.

 

[Brainonska511]

My standards for due process are high.

That wasn't my question. We're talking about character and public opinion, not conviction in a court of law. I bet you wouldn't use "due process" as a reason to hang out in a kitchen with 90s OJ and a box of knives or on Jeffrey Epstein's island if you were a young girl...

 

[interchange]

My standards for due process are high.

I'm sorry. What life, liberty, or property are (potentially) being denied to Kavanaugh? He is not and was not facing any civil or criminal liability.

 

[fskimospy]

My standards for due process are high.

Kavanaugh and every other nominee for SCOTUS is entitled to exactly zero due process in regards to their confirmation.

I want to be very clear on this - they get ZERO. -

This is explicitly how the Constitution is designed and to insert due process requirements into it would subvert the intent of the advice and consent clause.

 

[brycejones]

My standards for due process are high.

You are fucking high.

 

[1prophet]

Had I discovered what I should have known, that I fucked up another person's life because of my own drunken lusts, I would hope I'd have the courage to abandon success that might lay before me to atone at least in part for my sins. I would also want to say I am sorry.

Just like Edward Kennedy did after Chappaquiddick?
Was the liberal Democrat party better off that he stayed the course as a successful Senator or should he have “abandoned success in order to atone for his sins while saying he was sorry”?

 

[Starbuck1975]

That wasn't my question. We're talking about character and public opinion, not conviction in a court of law. I bet you wouldn't use "due process" as a reason to hang out in a kitchen with 90s OJ and a box of knives or on Jeffrey Epstein's island if you were a young girl...

Character and public opinion are an inconsistent standard. Epstein and Weinstein were known predators in certain circles, yet the allure of their money and influence took precedence over any appeal to ethics. OJ actually went through our criminal justice system and technically is innocent of committing murder, yet I don’t think OJ would ever win elected office or a role even remotely associated with football. People feigned shock over Trump’s character, yet its been in the public eye for all to see since the 80s. Bill Clinton was a credibly accused sexual predator, but that didn’t stop Democrats from nominating him. The list goes on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just like Edward Kennedy did after Chappaquiddick?
Was the liberal Democrat party better off that he stayed the course as a successful Senator or should he have “abandoned success in order to atone for his sins while saying he was sorry”?

Whataboutism of the way back kind, huh?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Kavanaugh and every other nominee for SCOTUS is entitled to exactly zero due process in regards to their confirmation.

I want to be very clear on this - they get ZERO. -

This is explicitly how the Constitution is designed and to insert due process requirements into it would subvert the intent of the advice and consent clause.

But we’re talking impeachment now, so he is very much entitled to due process.

 

[Brainonska511]

Character and public opinion are an inconsistent standard. Epstein and Weinstein were known predators in certain circles, yet the allure of their money and influence took precedence over any appeal to ethics. OJ actually went through our criminal justice system and technically is innocent of committing murder, yet I don’t think OJ would ever win elected office or a role even remotely associated with football. People feigned shock over Trump’s character, yet its been in the public eye for all to see since the 80s. Bill Clinton was a credibly accused sexual predator, but that didn’t stop Democrats from nominating him. The list goes on.

Our justice system doesn't generally find people innocent, merely "not guilty" [beyond a reasonable doubt].

You're full of shit on your "due process" standards for public officials and you're constantly deflecting.

 

[dank69]

But we’re talking impeachment now, so he is very much entitled to due process.

Lucky for you and your Republican heroes, huh?

 

[fskimospy]

But we’re talking impeachment now, so he is very much entitled to due process.

No, he is not. There is zero due process requirement for impeachment in the Constitution and to add one would be to subvert the intent of the impeachment clause.

To be clear - absolutely zero. Congress can remove you from office because it doesn't like the look on your face.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just like Edward Kennedy did after Chappaquiddick?
Was the liberal Democrat party better off that he stayed the course as a successful Senator or should he have “abandoned success in order to atone for his sins while saying he was sorry”?

Ask Solomon. I'm too judgmental of an asshole.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, he is not. There is zero due process requirement for impeachment in the Constitution and to add one would be to subvert the intent of the impeachment clause.

To be clear - absolutely zero. Congress can remove you from office because it doesn't like the look on your face.

Then why is Congress wrestling with the burden of proof and evidence to support impeaching Trump. I am sure Nancy can rally enough votes for people triggered by Trump’s face.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Our justice system doesn't generally find people innocent, merely "not guilty" [beyond a reasonable doubt].

You're full of shit on your "due process" standards for public officials and you're constantly deflecting.

That’s because we presume innocence. You don’t have to prove innocence.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why is Congress wrestling with the burden of proof and evidence to support impeaching Trump. I am sure Nancy can rally enough votes for people triggered by Trump’s face.

Congress is weighing political support for impeaching Trump and/or the effects of impeaching him on public opinion. So while Congress can consider evidence related to impeachment if it feels like it, the Constitution very purposefully requires no such thing. Again, it would violate the Constitution to require due process standards and undermine the impeachment power.

People simply do not have the right to a government job like they have the right not to be imprisoned.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Congress is weighing political support for impeaching Trump and/or the effects of impeaching him on public opinion. So while Congress can consider evidence related to impeachment if it feels like it, the Constitution very purposefully requires no such thing. Again, it would violate the Constitution to require due process standards and undermine the impeachment power.

People simply do not have the right to a government job like they have the right not to be imprisoned.

The wikipedia article on impeachment defines the process as a trial, analogous to charges brought by a grand jury, and for which the legislative branch considers evidence. That sounds like due process to me.