New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Slings and Arrows said:
"If the Dems can do this to Brett Kavanaugh.....just imagine what can actually be proved about an actual rapist and sexual predator if FBI investigates.

"I request the FBI investigate my credible rape allegations against Bill Clinton, in the hope that his 'perks', as a Former Pres, can be stripped. It totals millions each year from mine and your tax dollar to support a rapist.

"I further demand an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton by @kathleenwilley and Leslie Millwee @Astroluvr And many others. WE deserve to be heard too."

-- Juanita Broaddrick (Sept 29, 2018)
Click to expand...

Sounds good. All rape accusations should be investigated fairly and impartially.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Yes, but what if someone asked him some mean questions?

That's actually where we're at in this conversation right now.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1046052917403365377

If I was traipsed in front of the Senate on bogus charges and forced to answer deeply personal and embarrassing questions about my high school antics, maybe out of embarrassment and anger I might be less than truthful. Would that make me a liar who can't be trusted again? Come on
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1046456265772355585

The emerging conservative argument is that, yes, Kavanaugh lied (or was "less than truthful") in sworn testimony but that's because he's so angry at being falsely accused. I admire the boldness of this play.
Click to expand...
 
as the Onion commentator said:

“If we let this accusation derail this nominee, what kind of message are we sending to people who have no business being on the Supreme Court?”

REX BRANDT • TALISMAN POLISHER
Click to expand...
 
The Big Dog said:
Let’s investigate a potential crime.

Come back in 35 years and we will start then.
Click to expand...

Bwa ha ha! First you guys complain that they waited too long, and now you suggest, jokingly, that they should always wait that long. You know, the joke isn't funny if there's no smidgen of truth in it.
 
Getting upset to look more credible is such an old trope of Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and everyone at Fox.
It is so cliché that the Simpsons made an episode about it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Getting upset to look more credible is such an old trope of Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and everyone at Fox.
It is so cliché that the Simpsons made an episode about it.
Click to expand...

They should run clips of his testimony alongside the faked Glenn Beck onion-tears bit.

Hey, maybe it's possible that guy wasn't handing him something, he was palming the slice of onion!
 
Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations

There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

-- Rachel Mitchell (Veteran sex crimes prosecutor, Maricopa County, Arizona) Sept 30, 2018
Click to expand...


Rachel Mitchell's 5-page analysis can be summed up as follows: Dr. Ford's allegations are "weaker" than a 'he said, she said' case.
 
Last edited:
Republicans have to lie about Ford's collaborating witnesses to make Ford's testimony seem less credible. It doesn't serve them well except to their base, to everyone else in the world it only makes it look like a cover-up.
 
I hope Rachel Mitchell made it clear that the circumstances of Ford's testimony are far from how a normal witness/victim interview is supposed to proceeded: usually, the prosecutor isn't just a sock puppet for some senators.

But that is mostly beside the point, since no one is seriously calling for a criminal prosecution of Kavanaugh.
 
Bob001 said:
You don't seem willing to understand that the issue is ...
Click to expand...

Bob001 said:
If anybody weaponized accusations of sexual misconduct, it was Kavanaugh, when he was a political operative working for Ken Starr to end a presidency over a consensual relationship between two adults. Let Kav eat some of his own cooking.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm the one who's having trouble understanding what the issue is.

The Senate Democrats sank just as low on Thursday as the House Republicans and their lap dog Ken Starr sank in 1998. In 1998, when the Republicans tried to dig dirt, they found it. Bill Clinton lied under oath. There was no doubt about it. That was a crime. Perjury! They had him, right? The evidence was crystal clear. And they lost. And they were punished at the polls for trying. And I was very happy about that because the effort to expose details of his personal life as a means to a political end was disgusting.

It still is.

Should Kavanaugh be confirmed? Whatever. I was so appalled at the tactics of the Democrats that I now see that as a secondary issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think I'm the one who's having trouble understanding what the issue is.

The Senate Democrats sank just as low on Thursday as the House Republicans and their lap dog Ken Starr sank in 1998. In 1998, when the Republicans tried to dig dirt, they found it. Bill Clinton lied under oath. There was no doubt about it. That was a crime. Perjury! They had him, right? The evidence was crystal clear. And they lost. And they were punished at the polls for trying. And I was very happy about that because the effort to expose details of his personal life as a means to a political end was disgusting.

It still is.

Should Kavanaugh be confirmed? Whatever. I was so appalled at the tactics of the Democrats that I now see that as a secondary issue.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps step back a moment, and look at how the nominee himself has behaved, surely that's what is important not what any political bods may or may not have done?

Seems to me to be rather strange that you are no longer concerned whether the nominee is suitable for the role or not.
 
Where are all of our forum members who typically screech about tribalism right about now? Why is it, as ever, only a problem when the Democrats are doing it?
 
I really can't see how Meadmaker could be disgusted by Democratic Senators' behavior. They were probing to see if Brett was the partying-rapey type of person. That's what the questions were about.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I really can't see how Meadmaker could be disgusted by Democratic Senators' behavior. They were probing to see if Brett was the partying-rapey type of person. That's what the questions were about.
Click to expand...

But being disgusted at someone else's behaviour strikes me as a rather silly reason to say you are not longer bothered if someone else is the right person for a role or not.
 
Darat said:
But being disgusted at someone else's behaviour strikes me as a rather silly reason to say you are not longer bothered if someone else is the right person for a role or not.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's a weird thought process indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom