New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Aridas said:
Not yet, he hasn't. He has done something, though, which is worth recognizing.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
The only two people who claim the party and/or assault never happened are Kavanaugh and Judge...the two people accused of being involved in the assault.
Click to expand...

When did Judge claim that? He first claimed that he didn't remember the party in question. Later, we got "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," in the same letter where he claims to avoid public speaking, which is directly contradicted by Encounter Book's website, who published some of his work. This isn't particularly confidence inducing, especially when he is claimed to have also been very drunk and he's publicly been clear about how much of an extreme alcoholic he was.
Click to expand...

Please note my use of "and/or". Judge never claimed the party did not happen but his statement that "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," is just another way of saying it never happened as Ford says he was in the room. How could he see the assault and then claim he never say K act in the manner Dr. Ford describes?
 
Last edited:
River said:
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?

Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story. In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh. You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault. Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
Click to expand...
That is a straw man, yet you keep repeating it.

Kav was evasive, dishonest and downplayed his drinking and drunkenness. Ford was forthcoming and did nothing suggesting dishonesty.

Based on that, I do believe her and not him.

Said witnesses you refer to were not questioned under oath. Said witnesses only said they didn't remember the events, they did not say the events didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
River said:
Thanks. So is believing someone purely based on allegations, that were not corroborated by her named witnesses. (whos statements support the accused)

Two names.


Carolyn Bryant

Emmett Till
Click to expand...

Well, for the record I have never said I believe Dr. Ford. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on that question. To be honest, I'm wrestling with my own bias. I will fully admit that I do not want to see Kavanaugh confirmed. I felt that way long before Dr. Ford ever entered the equation. I felt that way before Kavanaughs damning performance under oath. I do not trust him and I do not like his politics.

I do lean toward believing Dr. Ford, but am finding it difficult to rule out personal bias coloring my judgement. Thankfully, I am not a US Senator.

I will add, however, that Kavanaugh was more evasive, hostile and dissembling than Dr. Ford was during questioning. That weights in her favor in my opinion. If this was a trial and I was a juror, I could not vote to convict Kavanaugh given the current evidence.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
That is a straw man, yet you keep repeating it.

Kav was evasive, dishonest and downplayed his drinking and drunkenness. Ford was forthcoming and did nothing suggesting dishonesty.

Based on that, I do believe her and not him.

Said witnesses you refer to were not questioned under oath. Said witnesses only said they didn't remember the events, they did not say the events didn't happen.
Click to expand...

They did submit statements under oath, under penalty of a felony if false statements were made. Their statements support the accused, not the accuser.
 
River said:
Don't think you seem biased based on the evidence and witnesses presented concerning Fords allegations? (no prosecutor would touch it)

Do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
Click to expand...
It's not a criminal prosecution.

There you go again with the equal rights question. You'll have to explain the relevance.
 
River said:
Thanks. So is believing someone purely based on allegations, that were not corroborated by her named witnesses. (whos statements support the accused)

Two names.


Carolyn Bryant

Emmett Till
Click to expand...

We have more than just Ford's allegations. We have seen her testimony in which she answered every single question posed to her forthrightly and credibly. If she didn't remember something, she said so. We also have seen BK's testimony in which he entered the room in an angry, self-defensive, hostile, and belligerent manner. We saw him constantly evade questions and refuse to give a clear answer. We saw him accuse the Dems of a conspiracy against him in revenge for Clinton. We saw him lie repeatedly about his yearbook. We saw him claim repeatedly and falsely that all Ford's named witnesses had denied the assault ever took place. We saw him lie repeatedly about the extent of his drinking despite numerous classmates who said he was a very hard drinker who was highly drunk on numerous occasions. We saw him falsely accuse a senator of trying to "make fun" of someone's alcoholism and answered a completely logical and pertinent question regarding ever having blackouts by asking her with a combative and completely inappropriate "Have you?" We saw a man who displayed behavior
and judgment clearly in opposition to that expected of a US SC Justice in a public setting. That is what we have.
 
Last edited:
Kellyanne Conway is now a member of the #metoo movement.

But she didn't report it to the police, and she's only speaking up about now... many years later.

Therefore, she's must be lying and has some kind of agenda going on.

Damn republican commies and their damn lying fake news agendas trying to ruin this country and mens' lives !


 
River said:
They did submit statements under oath, under penalty of a felony if false statements were made. Their statements support the accused, not the accuser.
Click to expand...

This is your problem. In actuality, their statements neither corroborate nor disprove Ford's claims.

Not remembering an event does not prove it never happened. Why do you have trouble understanding something that simple?:confused:

ETA: If any of the witnesses had said they remembered that party and remember that BK and MJ never left the room they were all in, then THAT would disprove Ford's story. But no one has.
 
Last edited:
Trump tweets

"Wow! Just starting to hear the Democrats, who are only thinking Obstruct and Delay, are starting to put out the word that the “time” and “scope” of FBI looking into Judge Kavanaugh and witnesses is not enough. Hello! For them, it will never be enough - stay tuned and watch!"
 
dmaker said:
I will add, however, that Kavanaugh was more evasive, hostile and dissembling than Dr. Ford was during questioning. That weights in her favor in my opinion. If this was a trial and I was a juror, I could not vote to convict Kavanaugh given the current evidence.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you what weighs heavily in her favour for me... she repeatedly asked for an FBI investigation. People who are knowingly telling lies simply don't do that.

Add to this, the fact that Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to answer yes/no questions as to whether he would like an FBI investigation. He stalled, evaded, equivocated, filibustered and refused to directly answer these questions, and when he was asked to give only a "yes" or "no" answer, he refused to speak at all. Only liars, the guilty and people with something to hide act this way.

The fact that Dr. Ford wanted an investigation and Kavanaugh didn't tells us all we need know about who is lying, and who isn't.
 
(re: Flake)
Aridas said:
Not yet, he hasn't. He has done something, though, which is worth recognizing.
Click to expand...

You know, I saw the chyron (I love that word!) that said Senator Flake was going to be a definite "Yes" on the Kav vote. This was shortly before the elevator incident. However, I had the feeling he was going to do a McCain and vote "No" when the time came. After all, he's not up for re-election and has nothing to lose. The elevator incident sealed the deal.
 
smartcooky said:
I'll tell you what weighs heavily in her favour for me... she repeatedly asked for an FBI investigation. People who are knowingly telling lies simply don't do that.

Add to this, the fact that Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to answer yes/no questions as to whether he would like an FBI investigation. He stalled, evaded, equivocated, filibustered and refused to directly answer these questions, and when he was asked to give only a "yes" or "no" answer, he refused to speak at all. Only liars, the guilty and people with something to hide act this way.

The fact that Dr. Ford wanted an investigation and Kavanaugh didn't tells us all we need know about who is lying, and who isn't.
Click to expand...

That's true...for those who take off their blinders. The others? Phffft! They'll keep on telling us that all the witness have said the assault and/or party never happened, that BK just forgot or misremembered what all those yearbook entries really meant, and that Ford not remembering the exact date or house where the assault took place and how she got or left there indicate she's not being truthful.
 
Ford fails every conceivable test,

Where? She does not know
When? Maybe before sophomore year. Maybe.
Who? Owned the house? She does not know
What did she do before or after? Does not know
How? Did she get there?
Why didn’t she say anything when he was adviser to the President, nominated for the DC Circuit!etc etc?

Why? Did she not tell Leland? Hmmm, that is a head scratcher

She almost got molested, and she left her best friend there alone?
 
Meadmaker said:
Good thing River said "support", rather than either of the words you used.
Click to expand...

They don't support it. How does, I don't remember support either side? Unless we have an expectation that Judge should remember it, it simply does not support Kav.

And it especially doesn't weigh much at all against Kav's evasiveness, lying and not being able to say he welcomed an FBI investigation.
 
Meadmaker said:
Good thing River said "support", rather than either of the words you used.
Click to expand...

The witness statements DO corroborate the statement made by Kavanaugh. They do not corroborate Ford.

Do they disprove Ford? Nope.

Fords testimony/allegations alone are what they are, a stand alone accusation with no corroborating evidence. I could say the same thing about Kavanaugh, and without any evidence or corroborating witnesses you're left with the same thing we have here. He said she said. Only, she named witnesses that could not corroborate what her statement was. Their statements did in fact corroborate Kavanaughs statement. Spin it any way you like. Matters not to me.

I would not vote to confirm for entirely other reasons.
 
smartcooky said:
I'll tell you what weighs heavily in her favour for me... she repeatedly asked for an FBI investigation. People who are knowingly telling lies simply don't do that.
Click to expand...


Yeah. They do. Let's leave aside the false dichotomy between her story being true versus her knowingly telling lies. Even people who are knowingly telling lies will brashly proclaim their innocence, inviting investigations, claiming they have nothing to hide.



People who are lying are sure that there's no way anyone can catch them in their lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom