• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 215 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paratus said:
So if I was the FBI agent in charge I would do what the President said and do a full and thorough investigation with no limits into Kavanaughs background regardless of what any potential deep state agent telling me to limit the scope. After all it’s what the President ordered on Twitter.

I’m sure the conservatives on this board completely agree with that reasoning.
jnHWXN4.gif
Click to expand...
😀

Despite what Don hath tweet us
We must protect the fetus

No matter what she saw
No facts must tarnish Kavanaugh

No more shall ye abort
We Big Bad Brett on the Court

You may think this
Is just a dream

Oh yes, but it's a bad one
Not minor but Supreme.
 
Guru said:
Okay, all of what you wrote are claims! Okay? None of it is evidence. Her stating stuff is NOT evidence.

Polygraph is a bit more credible, now that I read that she did in fact took a polygraph test it does add a little bit of credibility, but polygraph tests are not evidence either. As I've said its very easy for a trained professional to consistently pass the polygraph with lies, average results themselves are often inconclusive and erroneous and thus polygraph testing is INADMISSIBLE in court.

So NONE of what you wrote is evidence. Polygraph test adds a little bit of credibility to her story, in terms of she believing that she was sexually assaulted, but again that is not evidence because of the nature of polygraph results, they are illegitimate, the test itself is not consistent and scam free.

Look we have history of false polygraph tests putting innocent men in prison, who took the test to exonerate themselves, and ended up incriminating themselves, only for years later to be exonerated due to DNA testing and confirming they are innocent. Sometimes the pressure of the situation can make you fail the polygraph test.

So there are good reasons why polygraph tests are illegitimate and inadmissible in court!
Click to expand...
Odd, Brat K thinks they (polygraphs) should be used for vetting top jobs, but of course probably not for him, he's far too entitled for that.
 
Fighting fiction with facts and fighting lunatic conspiracy theories with logic and common sense bring forth some interesting and revealing state of affairs and the mindset of those folks from the Trump World: desperation and a total commitment toward supporting the wants and needs of their political leaders and not at all the REAL needs of their working class constituency of which ironically, the Dems want to give them, yet due to party affiliation/indoctrination are categorically refused. Imagine that, refusing things that they would greatly benefit from solely because it was offered by the opposition party.

As we've seen from the get-go, the Repubs wanted a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am warp drive leap through the job interview hearings resulting in a 100% guarantee approval for Kavanaugh's grab for the bench featuring hidden documents, lies by them, by their own candidate, absurd maneuvers exactly like their push to repeal and/or gut the ACA, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

It's as if the Repubs view these shenanigans as SOP for getting things done. This is their new normal. This is what we can expect from them from here on in. Rule of Law, ethics, decorum and protocol went gleefully out the window the moment they captured all three branches of gov't.

Well here's your GOP game plan as I've seen it over and over again: Loot and Scoot, suffer a loss at the polls, lay low and then obstruct at will, spread fictitious accusations, conspiracy theories, hate and fear, lie and lie and lie enough to get back control and start the looting all over again, repeat as necessary.

That's Trump's MAGA at work here folks.
 
soundforbjt said:
Even more recent...yesterday

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/09/aba_president_calls.html

ABA president calls for FBI investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh
WASHINGTON, September 28, 2018 — American Bar Association President Bob Carlson sent a letter Thursday night to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging the committee to conduct its confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh only after the FBI has conducted an investigation into misconduct allegations against the nominee. Read the full text of the letter here.
Click to expand...


So... the ABA is now the enemy of the people, amirite?
 
brycejones said:
FTFY since they are crawling out of the woodwork
Click to expand...

They= anyone who doesn't think like you do. How authoritarian. People can have a difference of opinion without being trolls. Most of the opposing views in this thread are just that, people expressing a different opinion, as they see it.
 
compuwiz1 said:
They= anyone who doesn't think like you do. How authoritarian. People can have a difference of opinion without being trolls. Most of the opposing views in this thread are just that, people expressing a different opinion, as they see it.
Click to expand...

True, some are trolls and some are legitimate morons.
 
Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told The Washington Post on Sunday that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Ludington says he was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph....html?__twitter_impression=true&noredirect=on
 
ecogen said:
Let's hope the FBI isn't instructed to ignore this as being outside the scope of the investigation.
Click to expand...

Let's hope it's all wrong, and Wray is ignoring the inane directive of interviewing only 4 people. I see in the news Ramirez is claiming she has witnesses who can corroborate her claims. How can the FBI ignore it?
 
soundforbjt said:
Odd, Brat K thinks they (polygraphs) should be used for vetting top jobs, but of course probably not for him, he's far too entitled for that.
Click to expand...

I'm not Kavanaugh's consciousness, I couldn't care less about him. Have I mentioned that I support him? Have I mentioned that I believe him? NO!

I'm defending the principles that you morons all so easily trash when it serves your political needs for ALL our sake! The principle of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty!

I couldn't care less about this asshole Kavanaugh, I strongly disagree with his rulings and writings on the 4th and 5th amendment, as well as issues with the 10th amendment, etc... Okay?

So don't give me that democratic talking points bullshit! Its bullshit! I don't care what Kavanaugh thinks or is saying!

I'm defending him purely on the basis of innocent until proven guilty! So far there is no evidence to corroborate Ford's story and because that IS ALL you democrats oppose him on now, he should get confirmed!

You didn't oppose him on this anti privacy rulings and writings, on his rulings that "accused terrorists" don't have constitutional rights, just because they are accused of a crime. So what is happening to him now is poetic justice and I LOVE IT!

But I'm not going to throw out BASIC principles and STAPLES of FREEDOM just to get at Kavanaugh and that is where idiotic democrats lose me! You throw out perfect principles and norms to get at your political enemies, you RUIN FREEDOM!

So I'm forced to defend him in order to defend the principle, the norm, the concept of innocent until proven guilty!
 
Maxima1 said:
Let's hope it's all wrong, and Wray is ignoring the inane directive of interviewing only 4 people. I see in the news Ramirez is claiming she has witnesses who can corroborate her claims. How can the FBI ignore it?
Click to expand...

I don't know man, your politics are weird. With what I've seen the last few years it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they found some bullshit excuse to leave this out of the report.
 
Aegeon said:
You're simply outright factually mistaken here. At best there is a language issue here if you are from a foreign country, or you are simply clueless, or intentionally lying about this. We have established you do not know basic things about the case, or apparently even the definition of evidence. (Its not as strong as something like a video or eye witness to the actual assault, but on top of the polygraph when she has previously talked about this and what circumstances is relevant evidence in comparison to her only suddenly bringing the assault for the first time up once Kavanaugh was actually nominated as some people on the internet had basically claimed.)
Click to expand...

Those are her claims, that is not evidence. Yes, her own husband confirming that is corroboration to her claims that she told him about it, but its not evidence to corroborate her accusation. Even if she did tell her husband after 26 years , (there is no way to really tell, he is her husband after all, he could lie) and not after 36 years, it doesn't corroborate her claims in any way!
 
yllus said:
Honestly yeah. The Democrats did not do an adequate job of questioning either; I know it's a tall task with 5 minutes each but it has to be done. Cede your time to a lead questioner and get real answers.

Assault allegations or not, you cannot have a potential Supreme Court judge lying left and right like he did here. Judge Amy Barrett would presumably be confirmed with grumbling but with confidence of being a competent appointee and of morals of the highest order.
Click to expand...


Dems should have probably used a prominent prosecution or defense attorney to ask their questions similar to the repubs. They used most of their short time defending Ford.
 
brycejones said:
Where are you from then? BTW I think this is first time you've denied being from Poland despite being called out a couple of times from there being there.

By your own admission you aren't from or live in the US. So let us know where you are from so we can put your concern trolling and ranting into perspective.
Click to expand...
Why is that so important? Does where I live have a bearing on the facts? Does it change reality of what the facts are and what I'm saying?

I value my privacy, I'm not going to tell you where I live.
 
Guru said:
I'm not Kavanaugh's consciousness, I couldn't care less about him. Have I mentioned that I support him? Have I mentioned that I believe him? NO!

I'm defending the principles that you morons all so easily trash when it serves your political needs for ALL our sake! The principle of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty!

I couldn't care less about this asshole Kavanaugh, I strongly disagree with his rulings and writings on the 4th and 5th amendment, as well as issues with the 10th amendment, etc... Okay?

So don't give me that democratic talking points bullshit! Its bullshit! I don't care what Kavanaugh thinks or is saying!

I'm defending him purely on the basis of innocent until proven guilty! So far there is no evidence to corroborate Ford's story and because that IS ALL you democrats oppose him on now, he should get confirmed!

You didn't oppose him on this anti privacy rulings and writings, on his rulings that "accused terrorists" don't have constitutional rights, just because they are accused of a crime. So what is happening to him now is poetic justice and I LOVE IT!

But I'm not going to throw out BASIC principles and STAPLES of FREEDOM just to get at Kavanaugh and that is where idiotic democrats lose me! You throw out perfect principles and norms to get at your political enemies, you RUIN FREEDOM!

So I'm forced to defend him in order to defend the principle, the norm, the concept of innocent until proven guilty!
Click to expand...

You're ovelooking all that's been said in this thread up to the point where Ford's accusations came to light. Kavanaugh's record has been hotly contested. The Senate majority was willing to overlook all those compelling reasons & more. Those are the things they like most about him. So if this brouhaha means he gets rejected for all the wrong reasons I'm still good with the outcome. He's not fit to serve.

If McConnell hadn't changed the rules to have a SCOTUS majority of right wing partisans we wouldn't be here at all. They never would have offered up Kavanaugh had 60 votes been necessary for confirmation.
 
Guru said:
Those are her claims, that is not evidence.
Click to expand...
When she told the claims to who is indisputably evidence. For instance the fact she told her therapist in 2012 about the assault with the therapist notes specifying "that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.'"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...on-against-kavanaugh-unfolded-in-one-timeline

This at a minimum means she did not suddenly make up the claim such an event occurred suddenly when Kavanaugh got nominated, although its true the notes lack Kavanaugh's name at that time.

She also definitely contacted the Washington Post tip-line and specifically named Kavanaugh as her assaulter prior to his actual nomination, although she did not want to go public with her name at that time. (There is some evidence she was trying come up with a way to persuade the White House to pick another one of their candidates to actually nominate, which would be consistent with the assault occurring rather than her simply trying to prevent a Conservative Supreme Court Justice from being nominated. You would really need an alternate not obvious reason she would hold a grudge against Kavanaugh for her to act with this as her specific goal.)

Now you can argue these other details would not be definitive evidence in a court case, but they absolutely would be legally admissible supporting evidence in such a hypothetical case. Its worth noting for example that Bill Cosby got convicted of rape and sentenced to 3 to 10 years in jail mostly on the testimony of one individual. (Most of Cosby's accusers were not actually admissible evidence in the criminal case.)
 
Last edited:
compuwiz1 said:
They= anyone who doesn't think like you do. How authoritarian. People can have a difference of opinion without being trolls. Most of the opposing views in this thread are just that, people expressing a different opinion, as they see it.
Click to expand...

Nope, I am referring to those who flat out don't argue in good faith, from positions of ignorance, refuse to consider the evidence provided and then claim to be absolutely correct.

There are trolls and there are idiots. Btw I don't think you are troll. Just an angry old man.
 
Guru said:
I'm not Kavanaugh's consciousness, I couldn't care less about him. Have I mentioned that I support him? Have I mentioned that I believe him? NO!

I'm defending the principles that you morons all so easily trash when it serves your political needs for ALL our sake! The principle of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty!

I couldn't care less about this asshole Kavanaugh, I strongly disagree with his rulings and writings on the 4th and 5th amendment, as well as issues with the 10th amendment, etc... Okay?

Click to expand...

Examples of what you disagree with and why?
 
I have to say that I am disappointed that Kavanaugh lied about boofing. I think having a Supreme Court nominee discussing buttchugging in a televised Senate hearing is exactly the kind of open and frank discussion this country needs. "I like beer, do you like beer, Senator?" followed by, "I enjoy buttchugging. Do you enjoy buttchugging, Senator?" Dinner table discussions would be awkward.
 
"A Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accused him on Sunday of a “blatant mischaracterization” of his drinking while in college, saying that he often saw Judge Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

The classmate, Chad Ludington, who said he frequently socialized with Judge Kavanaugh as a student, said in a statement that the judge had been untruthful in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he had denied any possibility that he had ever blacked out from drinking.

Mr. Ludington said that Judge Kavanaugh had played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking, and that the judge had often become “belligerent and aggressive” while intoxicated. Other former classmates have made similar claims."

Maybe Mr. Ludington is just . . . you know . . . confused about what he remembers?
 
It would have been a simple matter to pick some other conservative that wasn’t such a huge tool (political and otherwise) with a proclivity for dishonesty when this first blew up.

One can’t help but wonder.
 
K1052 said:
It would have been a simple matter to pick some other conservative that wasn’t such a huge tool (political and otherwise) with a proclivity for dishonesty when this first blew up.

One can’t help but wonder.
Click to expand...

There's really nothing to wonder about. The GOP wants another huge tool on the SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top