Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[fskimospy]

This doesn't strike me as credibly accused. Marvelously vague 35-year-old accusation with (so far) no corroborating evidence that was deliberately withheld during the initial hearing.

That's fine, but most impartial people find it credible as you can see if you look at the news or the reaction of public officials from both parties. (non partisan sites only) Credible does not mean true, it means worth taking seriously. It's an accusation from a highly regarded individual that has been known by impartial third parties over the course of at least 6 years, including when Kavanaugh was not up for this nomination. That's credible enough to be taken seriously and it's why even Republican senators have been breaking ranks to stall the nomination.

 

[HomerJS]

I look forward to you and others holding to this standard in the future. You may have an opportunity to sooner than you think.

By fully investigated I include the FBI in on this. I doubt the WH will approve. My guess they think hearings will produce draw and they will move forward with vote.

 

[fskimospy]

What if it was a Republican that leaked Ford’s name to deliberately sink Kavanaugh as a way to motivate GOP voters for midterms, just enough to hold the Senate and dull the blow in the House?

Considering that the Republican deficit in the generic ballot has increased since the Kavanaugh nomination I doubt this is a good strategy.

I find Republican voters to be a lot like the Taliban in this way - it seemed like no matter what action America took someone was always saying it would embolden them. The same thing is true with the Republican base. Raise taxes? They are energized! Lower taxes? Energized! Confirm Kavanaugh? Energized (he's keeping promises!) Vote down Kavanaugh? Energized (libruls defeated him!).

 

[fskimospy]

Here's an analysis of the allegation from a former sex crimes prosecutor. Long story short, in the opinion of a subject matter expert it's credible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...anaugh-heres-her-take/?utm_term=.106bb3002fb0

 

[Atreus21]

That's fine, but most impartial people find it credible as you can see if you look at the news or the reaction of public officials from both parties. (non partisan sites only) Credible does not mean true, it means worth taking seriously. It's an accusation from a highly regarded individual that has been known by impartial third parties over the course of at least 6 years, including when Kavanaugh was not up for this nomination. That's credible enough to be taken seriously and it's why even Republican senators have been breaking ranks to stall the nomination.

Credible means believable. Roy Moore was credibly accused because of lots of evidence. This lacks that by quite some distance. However, I support the decision to have both people testify under oath.

Although all we'll probably end up with is each person under oath accusing the other of lying under oath. But it's as good as we may get.

 

[fskimospy]

Credible means believable. Roy Moore was credibly accused because of lots of evidence. This lacks that by quite some distance. However, I support the decision to have both people testify under oath.

Although all we'll probably end up with is each person under oath accusing the other of lying under oath. But it's as good as we may get.

Sure, and this accusation is believable. (see my other post from the former sex crime prosecutor) Roy Moore wasn't just credible, it was a slam dunk. There's no need for a slam dunk here.

As for what they both say I have little interest in what Kavanaugh says, although I am interested in Ford's testimony. As Kavanaugh has already perjured himself on numerous occasions it's impossible to take anything he says seriously. He's a known liar so why wouldn't he lie again about this?

 

[Atreus21]

Sure, and this accusation is believable. (see my other post from the former sex crime prosecutor) Roy Moore wasn't just credible, it was a slam dunk. There's no need for a slam dunk here.

As for what they both say I have little interest in what Kavanaugh says, although I am interested in Ford's testimony. As Kavanaugh has already perjured himself on numerous occasions it's impossible to take anything he says seriously. He's a known liar so why wouldn't he lie again about this?

If you're referring to the William Pryor stuff, Kavanaugh did not perjure himself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury

 

[fskimospy]

If you're referring to the William Pryor stuff, Kavanaugh did not perjure himself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury

The people in that article are saying it doesn't meet the legal standard for a perjury prosecution but most of them believe he was not honest in his testimony. So like I said, we already know Kavanaugh is not an honest person so there's little reason to believe what he says.

He's just an all around horrible nominee. Exactly what you don't want in a judge.

 

[Moonbeam]

The people in that article are saying it doesn't meet the legal standard for a perjury prosecution but most of them believe he was not honest in his testimony. So like I said, we already know Kavanaugh is not an honest person so there's little reason to believe what he says.

He's just an all around horrible nominee. Exactly what you don't want in a judge.

And in my opinion it makes little difference if Republicans put up somebody worse, you stop every bad one that you can and leave it up to the people to see that as long as they vote Republican they will wind up with swill on the court and all because Republicans place hideous ideology over personal integrity.

 

[Atreus21]

The people in that article are saying it doesn't meet the legal standard for a perjury prosecution but most of them believe he was not honest in his testimony. So like I said, we already know Kavanaugh is not an honest person so there's little reason to believe what he says.

He's just an all around horrible nominee. Exactly what you don't want in a judge.

One also says his response was truthful insofar as he understood the question.

Thus, Kavanaugh’s answer (“No. I was not involved in handling his nomination”) is truthful insofar as Kavanaugh understood “handling” to mean “in charge” of either vetting the person or shepherding that person’s nomination through the Senate. The fact that Kavanaugh apparently was invited to a meeting (and it is unclear from the email how many other people were invited) doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that Kavanaugh’s statement was untrue, much less that he intentionally lied or misled Senator Kennedy.

 

[Moonbeam]

One also says his response was truthful insofar as he understood the question.

Yes, well, you are also moral insofar as you understand morality.

 

[fskimospy]

One also says his response was truthful insofar as he understood the question.

That person was painting a scenario under which they think it COULD have been truthful. They are making no claims as to how Kavanaugh actually understood the question. (how could they?)

 

[jackstar7]

Have any of you geniuses going after Kavanaugh thought through his obvious replacement? You're making this about women, so.... the best GOP reply will be Amy Coney Barrett. You want a religious fundamentalist on the SCOTUS?

Granted, she isn't their only choice - but I see you pushing them towards it. If Trump isn't finished, you're making the outcome worse.

So you want an alleged sexual assaulter on the court?

Think about where you're setting the bar here.

 

[Blackjack200]

Credible means believable. Roy Moore was credibly accused because of lots of evidence. This lacks that by quite some distance. However, I support the decision to have both people testify under oath.

Although all we'll probably end up with is each person under oath accusing the other of lying under oath. But it's as good as we may get.

I think you will end up with one party telling a believable story, and another party saying as little as possible. It could sink the nomination.

https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1042087155546370048

 

[VRAMdemon]

This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight with these senators in the long run.. but it probably should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after the attempted incident?

Which begs the question....

What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, and which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn't affect his eligibility now to hold high office? Suppose that the victim was 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let's take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This doesn't strike me as credibly accused. Marvelously vague 35-year-old accusation with (so far) no corroborating evidence that was deliberately withheld during the initial hearing.

Hey, this that thar is a Republikan that may have teched a liberal woman, we need to string the bastich up right quick and ruin his life.Get a reputation rope.

 

[HomerJS]

This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight with these senators in the long run.. but it probably should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after the attempted incident?

Which begs the question....

What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, and which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn't affect his eligibility now to hold high office? Suppose that the victim was 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let's take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you draw the line?

If he did it he already lied so that is disqualifying. He also hasn't been completely honest in his answers. Remember the stumble to "have you talked to anyone on Trump's legal team. Should have been easy to answer.

 

[Sinsear]

Hopefully Kavanaugh does not get confirmed. Then we can get Amy Coney Barrett.

 

[Blackjack200]

This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight with these senators in the long run.. but it probably should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after the attempted incident?

Which begs the question....

What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, and which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn't affect his eligibility now to hold high office? Suppose that the victim was 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let's take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you draw the line?

This is, top to bottom, one of the most bizarre posts I've seen on these forums in quite some time.

 

[HomerJS]

The fix is in. Trump won't allow FBI to investigate. He's counting on the hearings to wind up a draw with no minds being changed. They will try to move forward with the vote.

Trump says no FBI probe needed on Supreme Court pick

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-no-fbi-probe-needed-supreme-court-172600594.html

 

[Zorba]

This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight with these senators in the long run.. but it probably should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after the attempted incident?

Which begs the question....

What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, and which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn't affect his eligibility now to hold high office? Suppose that the victim was 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let's take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you draw the line?

I say for the USSC you should be able to find someone that is completely clean, at least of attempted rape. I don't think it should disqualify him from every possible job, but it should disqualify him from the USSC (if it happened).

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I say for the USSC you should be able to find someone that is completely clean, at least of attempted rape. I don't think it should disqualify him from every possible job, but it should disqualify him from the USSC (if it happened).

They did, he's innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Blackjack200]

Haha.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1042143700049178625

 

[fskimospy]

They did, he's innocent until proven guilty.

Legal innocence has nothing to do with this. If anything, the exact opposite applies here. People should only be confirmed if we have very, very high confidence in their moral character. In this case it looks at least reasonably likely that Kavanaugh is a sex criminal. That doesn't cross the 'very very high' bar for me.

He has the magic R after his name so I'm sure it does for you, but you're not an honest broker so who cares what you think?

 

[Bitek]

The people in that article are saying it doesn't meet the legal standard for a perjury prosecution but most of them believe he was not honest in his testimony. So like I said, we already know Kavanaugh is not an honest person so there's little reason to believe what he says.

He's just an all around horrible nominee. Exactly what you don't want in a judge.

At the end of the day, that's the crux of the confirmation process.

These allegations may not be court of law convictable, but he is tainted, and tainted by his own actions.

He cannot serve as a credible jurist, and confirming him will damage the credibility of the SCOTUS and any rulings they make.

The only prudent option is to withdraw Kav and find a new nominee.