Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[imported_tajmahal]

Read my edit, there was zero mention of Kavanaugh nor SC picks, it doesn't say what you think it says.

Of course, a poll about Republicans has nothing to do with Judicial nominations. Got it.

 

[brycejones]

This thread is about the Kavanaugh nomination which dates back to July 9th.

Fuck you are stupid.

 

[Lanyap]

Judging from the animal house frat (DKE) he was in probably not:

https://www.theroot.com/brett-kavanaugh-belonged-to-a-frat-that-once-chanted-no-1829225336

His Frat was apparently recently reinstated after they were banned for 5 years for having freshman walk around chanting “No means Yes and Yes means Anal”.

(To be fair this was well after Kavanaugh was there and I seem to remember my schools DKE chapter doing the same chants back in the 90’s)

DKE has been around since 1844. Five of the 45 presidents were Dekes. A few of the many chapters got into trouble so there is somewhat of an animal house culture with some. Probably not too different than most other frats.

 

[UNCjigga]

Heard something this morning about how Mark Judge's lawyers told him to leave town immediately after his name came out in the press, and a reporter tracked him down to a beach house over the weekend. Apparently he was scared out of his wits...kept asking "How did you find me?", jumped in his car (full of his belongings) and left.

WTF is going on with that guy? I wonder who else was in contact with his lawyer, before they suggested he leave town? Are they afraid of a subpoena?? Dems can't serve one...so what is he afraid of??

Edit: Heard on the radio but here's a link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...augh-classmate-mark-judge-spotted/1418443002/

 

[UNCjigga]

Yeah apparently after Avenatti said on twitter his accuser might not come forward this morning (had a list of conditions that would need to be met), he has now locked down his account and set to private...

Whoa, really? I was afraid he'd do more harm than good with his media circus. He kept saying his client has a security clearance and all these credentials, plus had a whole list of witnesses...WHERE ARE THEY??

If he has nothing, then all he did was damage the credibility of the other women and give credence to GOP calling this a "smear campaign".

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Heard something this morning about how Mark Judge's lawyers told him to leave town immediately after his name came out in the press, and a reporter tracked him down to a beach house over the weekend. Apparently he was scared out of his wits...kept asking "How did you find me?", jumped in his car (full of his belongings) and left.

WTF is going on with that guy? I wonder who else was in contact with his lawyer, before they suggested he leave town? Are they afraid of a subpoena?? Dems can't serve one...so what is he afraid of??

Edit: Heard on the radio but here's a link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...augh-classmate-mark-judge-spotted/1418443002/

Thanks for the link. It makes more sense to me now.


"Judge, 54, made the trip to the coast at the advice of his attorney, Barbara "Biz" VanGelder, to escape the media maelstrom he had been swept into after Ford went public with her accusation against Kavanaugh, the Post reported.

"I told him to leave town. He is being hounded. He is a recovering alcoholic and is under unbelievable stress," VanGelder told the Post. "He needed for his own health to get out of this toxic environment and take care of himself."

 

[HomerJS]

I feel like his interview last night was a very bad idea, at least how he did it. He seemed to go way too far towards the claims that he was focused on getting good grades, playing sports, and being a fine upstanding citizen with little interest in partying beyond that of a normal kid. Regardless of whether or not you think he committed these various assaults I think few people believe he wasn't very interested in partying. When you lie about the small stuff it makes people wonder if you're lying about the big stuff.

I heard clips. He was so focused on "I just want a fair process that's all he could say.". When his wife was asked "Do you think the FBI should be brought in"? Brett wouldn't let his wife answer. Then he tried to claim he was a virgin for most of his young adult life. LMAO!

None of them want the FBI to investigate because they already know what would be found.

 

[fskimospy]

I heard clips. He was so focused on "I just want a fair process that's all he could say.". When his wife was asked "Do you think the FBI should be brought in"? Brett wouldn't let his wife answer. Then he tried to claim he was a virgin for most of his young adult life. LMAO!

None of them want the FBI to investigate because they already know what would be found.

It is very interesting that the people who adamantly claim they are completely innocent don't want any independent authority to investigate and establish that fact.

In fact, he would rather risk his entire nomination to the court than to permit such an investigation to take place! I'm sure he has a perfectly legitimate reason for that.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

In fact, he would rather risk his entire nomination to the court than to permit such an investigation to take place! I'm sure he has a perfectly legitimate reason for that.

Except he has absolutely no say in whether an investigation takes place or not

 

[Indus]

Except he has absolutely no say in whether an investigation takes place or not

Yeah he just has a say in him committing sexual assault or not!

 

[Lanyap]

Heard something this morning about how Mark Judge's lawyers told him to leave town immediately after his name came out in the press, and a reporter tracked him down to a beach house over the weekend. Apparently he was scared out of his wits...kept asking "How did you find me?", jumped in his car (full of his belongings) and left.

WTF is going on with that guy? I wonder who else was in contact with his lawyer, before they suggested he leave town? Are they afraid of a subpoena?? Dems can't serve one...so what is he afraid of??

Edit: Heard on the radio but here's a link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...augh-classmate-mark-judge-spotted/1418443002/

Because he sounds like a loser that does not want to be in the big spotlight and can't handle the pressure. And don't believe for a minute than none of the people coming forward against Kavanaugh haven't lawyer'ed up with the help of democrats.

 

[jackstar7]

Startling legal precedent that being a virgin somehow precludes one from engaging in sexual assault...

 

[fskimospy]

Except he has absolutely no say in whether an investigation takes place or not

Of course he does, don't be silly. Him coming out and saying he welcomes an FBI investigation and hopes one commences immediately would go a very long way towards it happening.

He isn't doing it because he doesn't want one.

 

[Jaskalas]

I feel like his interview last night was a very bad idea, at least how he did it. He seemed to go way too far towards the claims that he was focused on getting good grades, playing sports, and being a fine upstanding citizen with little interest in partying beyond that of a normal kid. Regardless of whether or not you think he committed these various assaults I think few people believe he wasn't very interested in partying. When you lie about the small stuff it makes people wonder if you're lying about the big stuff.

If Kavanaugh is going to pretend he wasn't an aggressive drunk - IN HIS TEENS - then he is a liar who should be impeached from the bench on which he resides.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It is very interesting that the people who adamantly claim they are completely innocent don't want any independent authority to investigate and establish that fact.

In fact, he would rather risk his entire nomination to the court than to permit such an investigation to take place! I'm sure he has a perfectly legitimate reason for that.

I think it's ridiculous of the "guilty until proven innocent" message that we have going in the most of this thread and the general lefty media. You can see it all over. Just take a stroll through the first 20 pages of this thread and you can create a laundry list of it.

And even on that note - putting everything on hold is absolutely ridiculous IMO. Put yourself in those shoes in a daily life scenario. You applied for and are the final candidate for a top notch job. But wait - someone from 30 years ago comes forward from the publicity and proclaims that you did something on the naughty list from 30 years ago. They want to hold off - don't worry - it's only your monetary income and time, no big deal right? I understand this is a bit different though in that it's a lifetime appointment, but I would be in full favor of continuing with the appointment on condition of them being kicked off if something actually turns up (which it wont - see below).

There literally is no credible evidence that anyone can provide. Zero. Look up the stats of how credible any eye-witness accounts are in criminal investigations... Human perceptions are HANDS DOWN the winner of the least credible evidence because it has been proven time and time again throughout history to be incorrect, false, misleading, bias - or simply mistaken. At this point, the only potential "evidence" that anyone can find is that - human interviews.

Of course he does, don't be silly. Him coming out and saying he welcomes an FBI investigation and hopes one commences immediately would go a very long way towards it happening.

He isn't doing it because he doesn't want one.

Like I said above, saying statements like this are INCREDIBLY dangerous to advocate for. It's very much the "What do you have to worry about if you didn't do anything?" type of bullshit. There is a reason why any lawyer with half a brain tells you that when a cop pulls you over - REGARDLESS of if you did something, have something, or didn't do something and don't have anything that you ALWAYS refuse a search.

 

[ecogen]

I think it's ridiculous of the "guilty until proven innocent" message that we have going in the most of this thread and the general lefty media. You can see it all over. Just take a stroll through the first 20 pages of this thread and you can create a laundry list of it.

And even on that note - putting everything on hold is absolutely ridiculous IMO. Put yourself in those shoes in a daily life scenario. You applied for and are the final candidate for a top notch job. But wait - someone from 30 years ago comes forward from the publicity and proclaims that you did something on the naughty list from 30 years ago. They want to hold off - don't worry - it's only your monetary income and time, no big deal right? I understand this is a bit different though in that it's a lifetime appointment, but I would be in full favor of continuing with the appointment on condition of them being kicked off if something actually turns up (which it wont - see below).

There literally is no credible evidence that anyone can provide. Zero. Look up the stats of how credible any eye-witness accounts are in criminal investigations... Human perceptions are HANDS DOWN the winner of the least credible evidence because it has been proven time and time again throughout history to be incorrect, false, misleading, bias - or simply mistaken. At this point, the only potential "evidence" that anyone can find is that - human interviews.

Oh no, it's making a fool out of itself again... How sad.

 

[K1052]

Looks like McConnell will have the Senate in session over the weekend to push the confirmation vote through. Still a lot of questions on the vote count.

 

[dainthomas]

Looks like McConnell will have the Senate in session over the weekend to push the confirmation vote through. Still a lot of questions on the vote count.

42 days. Tick tock, Turtle.

 

[jackstar7]

Looks like McConnell will have the Senate in session over the weekend to push the confirmation vote through. Still a lot of questions on the vote count.

What I heard is the Mitchy doesn't even like Kav as a pick, so he's okay with him losing so they can move on to someone else.

 

[K1052]

What I heard is the Mitchy doesn't even like Kav as a pick, so he's okay with him losing so they can move on to someone else.

He doesn't really care which exact conservative ends up on the bench though he did warn Trump not to pick Kavanaugh.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's ridiculous of the "guilty until proven innocent" message that we have going in the most of this thread and the general lefty media. You can see it all over. Just take a stroll through the first 20 pages of this thread and you can create a laundry list of it.

And even on that note - putting everything on hold is absolutely ridiculous IMO. Put yourself in those shoes in a daily life scenario. You applied for and are the final candidate for a top notch job. But wait - someone from 30 years ago comes forward from the publicity and proclaims that you did something on the naughty list from 30 years ago. They want to hold off - don't worry - it's only your monetary income and time, no big deal right?

Kavanaugh is owed exactly nothing when it comes to this job so I don't really care about that. Also, any job with a sane HR department would absolutely hold off and think twice if a candidate was credibly accused of a sex crime. More likely than not they would simply reject the candidate outright. Companies don't want to deal with that kind of potential liability.

It's not about 'guilty until proven innocent' because the standard is much higher for this than any criminal proceeding. It's more like 'is there a reasonable possibility of guilt, if so, reject'. Kavanaugh has certainly set off red flags left and right, not just about these allegations but dishonesty about other aspects of his record. Frankly he should have been rejected on those alone and this is just the icing on the cake.

I understand this is a bit different though in that it's a lifetime appointment, but I would be in full favor of continuing with the appointment on condition of them being kicked off if something actually turns up (which it wont - see below).

Such a condition does not exist and could never be enforced so that's not a viable answer.

There literally is no credible evidence that anyone can provide. Zero. Look up the stats of how credible any eye-witness accounts are in criminal investigations... Human perceptions are HANDS DOWN the winner of the least credible evidence because it has been proven time and time again throughout history to be incorrect, false, misleading, bias - or simply mistaken. At this point, the only potential "evidence" that anyone can find is that - human interviews.

Considering basically no real investigation of these allegations has been done we don't know how credible they are. There's all sorts of things you can do to bolster their credibility - interview other people who were there under oath, determine the credibility of their recollections. See if other people had similar experiences, etc, etc. After all, there is another person (Mark Judge) who was in the room at the time of the alleged assault. Republicans could easily call him in to testify under oath or he could speak to the FBI, either one would place him at legal jeopardy for perjuring himself so you're likely to get some decent answers.

Doesn't it seem odd to not call in the only other person alleged to have witnessed the assault and get their testimony under oath? If Kavanaugh is totally innocent this seems like a logical and easy step to clear his name.

 

[K1052]

Senate Republicans on the Judiciary committee have hired a female outside counsel to conduct their questioning. Not really a surprise but a confirmation that they also think a bunch of old white dudes couldn't conduct this without fucking up royally. Kind of calls into question their fitness for the seats they hold though.

Democrats say they plan to have their members conduct their end.

 

[kn51]

It's not about 'guilty until proven innocent' because the standard is much higher for this than any criminal proceeding. It's more like 'is there a reasonable possibility of guilt, if so, reject'. Kavanaugh has certainly set off red flags left and right, not just about these allegations but dishonesty about other aspects of his record. Frankly he should have been rejected on those alone and this is just the icing on the cake.

Are you implying the scales of justice are skewed?

 

[soundforbjt]

Are you implying the scales of justice are skewed?

This is a lifetime job interview, not a criminal trial, what part of that don't you understand?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you implying the scales of justice are skewed?

I'm implying that this is a job interview and just like any other job interview there's no requirement that the hiring committee grant you the presumption of innocence.

After all, if you were hiring someone would you consider 'he's probably not a violent sex criminal' to be good enough?