Legal Eagle on Kavanaugh Hearing.

[Ranb]

I watched some of the Kavanaugh hearings last year. I was appalled that anyone would think that Kavanaugh would make a suitable judge in any court when he was so evasive and unable to keep his emotions in check.

Over the last few months I've watched various videos on the Legal Eagle's channel; he is entertaining to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTDZDpdJFM

Below are some of his comments (paraphrased by me) on Kavanaugh's hearing, some of them regarding Ford's accusations.

Did Kavanaugh actually commit perjury? No. The Democrat Senators failed to pin down Kavanaugh on specific definitions and catch him on definite falsehoods. They failed to ask follow-up questions. They could have nailed him down on definitions of terms. A devil's triangle is a threesome with two men and one woman, not a drinking game. It's more likely that Kavanaugh is a puker (ralpher) from drinking not spicy food. The people who opposed Kavanaugh's domination were asking questions but failing to follow up properly. They couldn't even get Kavanaugh to answer yes or no.

Did Kavanaugh display a judge-like temperament? He is hot headed and takes partisan stances. Kavanaugh made his character an issue, so the Democrats had free rein to question it.

Would Kavanaugh prevent investigations of White House? Kavanaugh most recently argued that the president should be immune from criminal and civil actions. But during the Clinton years, he did not oppose this treatment of the president.

Would Ford's allegations hold up in court? He said, she said; doubtful that it would.

Should Kavanaugh have requested an investigation into his conduct regarding Ford's allegation. No client should ask for an investigation. Duh.

What do you guys think of the video? It's 23 minutes long, but worth the look I think.

Ranb

 

[Upchurch]

IANAL, but I like his channel. He is either a reasonable guy who takes an academic, non-partisan approach or he has me thoroughly fooled.

 

[Segnosaur]

Over the last few months I've watched various videos on the Legal Eagle's channel; he is entertaining to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTDZDpdJFM

I have seen some of his videos before (where he was talking about the legal accuracy of various TV shows and movies.) Thought that stuff was interesting.

Unfortunately can't watch his videos right now, so any comments I make will be based on your quotes.

Did Kavanaugh actually commit perjury? No. The Democrat Senators failed to pin down Kavanaugh on specific definitions and catch him on definite falsehoods.

Wouldn't a determination of whether he committed perjury depend on what the actual facts were (rather than what the Democrats were able to 'pin him down' on)?

I mean, if he claimed "the sky is red", even if the Democrats weren't able to show (at the time) he was lying, it would still be perjury.

They failed to ask follow-up questions. They could have nailed him down on definitions of terms. A devil's triangle is a threesome with two men and one woman, not a drinking game. It's more likely that Kavanaugh is a puker (ralpher) from drinking not spicy food.

Unfortunately, to 'nail' him over any of these, they would have needed the opportunity to do some research, which (thanks to the Republicans efforts to cram through the confirmation) they were not able to do.

Would Ford's allegations hold up in court? He said, she said; doubtful that it would.

Two issues here:
- True, during the hearings it was a case of 'he said/she said', which probably wouldn't hold up in court. But in an actual court case (where a proper investigation was held) there would likely have been more evidence provided. (Instead, the republicans cut short any sort of fact finding.) So it wouldn't be a 'he said/she said', it would be a 'he said/she said/these eye witnesses said/these written records said/etc.'

- It wasn't a court case. it was a confirmation hearing (essentially a job interview). The burden of proof is substantially lower

Should Kavanaugh have requested an investigation into his conduct regarding Ford's allegation. No client should ask for an investigation. Duh.

That I'm curious about.

If a person were completely innocent, then why wouldn't they want an investigation to 'clear their name'? After all, convicts regularly ask for their cases to be reopened (and things like DNA tests done).

 

[applecorped]

Christine Ford made a good amount of money from GoFundMe on this sham

 

[Ranb]

If a person were completely innocent, then why wouldn't they want an investigation to 'clear their name'?

Let's say Kavanaugh is completely innocent, but he still has accusers. What does he have to gain at all if there is no one to back up his claims of innocence? If there is an investigation and Kavanaugh gives any statements at all, they can be used against him. If he says nothing, it can't be used against him by law enforcement, but the court of public opinion will most likely find him guilty as "he refused to cooperate" so he must "have something to hide".

After all, convicts regularly ask for their cases to be reopened (and things like DNA tests done).

Kavanaugh was accused, he was not indicted or convicted.

 

[wasapi]

Christine Ford made a good amount of money from GoFundMe on this sham

Oh please. That has what to do with her being truthful? Are you capable of posting something of substance?

 

[Segnosaur]

Let's say Kavanaugh is completely innocent, but he still has accusers. What does he have to gain at all if there is no one to back up his claims of innocence? If there is an investigation and Kavanaugh gives any statements at all, they can be used against him.

But any investigation would not be focused on obtaining more of his testimony, it would be focused on obtaining statements from other eye witnesses and/or documents related to the case.

If he says nothing, it can't be used against him by law enforcement, but the court of public opinion will most likely find him guilty as "he refused to cooperate" so he must "have something to hide".

But that's already happened... his refusal to say "yes, investigate and get to the bottom of it" makes it already seem like he has "something to hide".

 

[Donal]

I just discovered his channel a few days ago too. I thought the same thing. The Democrats let themselves get played and Kavanaugh, irrespective of the charges of sexual assault, looked very poor. Under normal circumstances, he would have never even been considered. He was an emotional wreck, is of sketchy credentials, and spouted some bizarre conspiracy theory during a job interview.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re the Democrats being played, the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on old white guys. Just look at Biden's running the Anita Hill hearings.

The GOP had the votes to confirm Kavanaugh despite the hearing.

Remember an actual investigation was squelched. (multiple post-hearing sources)

Kavanaugh perjured himself. Here are his top lies. (with the evidence)
For example:

Kavanaugh’s claim: Judge Kavanaugh’s central defense is that all four witnesses Dr. Ford identified as being present at the party have said that the sexual assault “did not happen.”

What Kavanaugh actually said: “Just on one thing, Mr. Chairman – the evidence is not corroborated at the time. The witnesses who were there say that it didn’t happen.”

The reality: This is not true. Only one person has said that the sexual assault did not happen—Brett Kavanaugh. The other three party attendees that Dr. Ford identified simply did not say that.

Mark Judge said “I have no memory of this alleged incident.” In a letter yesterday, Judge said “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford.”
P.J. Smyth said “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct.”
Leyland Keyser said that she has “no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford” but that she believes Dr. Ford.

Given this, and suggesting the Democrats never brought out any actual perjury, it suggests Legal Eagle has presented biased evidence.

More evidence in the link documents Kavanaugh's drinking problem and his mistreatment of women in high school and college, both of which he lied about under oath.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.

 

[phiwum]

I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.

If a typical member of the public said that, then I wouldn't think it's perjury. It's loose talk under oath.

If a lawyer says it, he knows better. Kavanaugh knows the difference between "witnesses say it didn't happen" and "no witness recalls it happening." Unless he's an exceptionally incompetent attorney, he blatantly lied under oath.

I have no opinion about whether one could convict him of perjury, but every law-trained senator knows damned well that he lied under oath during a Senate hearing regarding his confirmation. Most voted for confirmation anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.

No, did you watch the hearing? His calendar that was easily shown to have been changed or completely fabricated is one example. His claim of not having a drinking problem, also refuted by multiple witnesses. There were a lot of reports from multiple sources that Kavanaugh denied.

Here are more lies even though the conclusion of these 'legal scholars': "Conclusion? It’s probably not perjury."

Vox: The Brett Kavanaugh perjury controversy, explained by 4 legal scholars

The 'scholars' are using the excuse maybe it wasn't "willful lying". That's bull ****. That was in his earlier confirmation hearing.


Those are not all of his lies under oath.

Vox updated: Did Brett Kavanaugh perjure himself? The debate, explained. - We keep having to talk about whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: … In the New Yorker.

HATCH: Did the ranking member [Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)] or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?

KAVANAUGH: No.

However, two friends of Kavanaugh’s — Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage — were in contact with the Supreme Court nominee and his team, according to text messages obtained by NBC:

So there are text messages, not just witnesses which are evidence of his lying in the hearing.

These text messages detailing Kavanaugh’s knowledge of Ramirez’s allegations aren’t the first time his truthfulness has come into question. Here are five other instances where discrepancies in Kavanaugh’s testimonies have been raised.

1) Kavanaugh’s drinking: ...

2) His yearbook:... As Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos explained, the word “boof,” a slang term that many have defined to mean anal sex, Kavanaugh defined as “flatulence.” Asked about the phrase “Devil’s Triangle,” which commonly refers to sex between two men and one woman, Kavanaugh said it was a drinking game akin to Quarters.

3) Kavanaugh’s involvement in the nomination of a controversial anti-Roe v. Wade judge: ...

4) There’s also the case of the improperly obtained Democratic files, detailing strategies for opposing Bush’s judicial nominees in the 2000s, which a Republican Senate aide circulated with White House staff. ...

5) Democrats have also tried to interrogate Kavanaugh’s possible involvement in the Bush administration torture policy. As Vox’s Li Zhou explained, in 2006 Kavanaugh said, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants … and so I do not have the involvement with that.” However, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) cited two news reports that said Kavanaugh was present at a meeting on whether US enemy combatants should be given lawyers while they are being detained. ...

Kavanaugh, IMO, did a poor impression of Clarence Thomas' faux outrage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If a typical member of the public said that, then I wouldn't think it's perjury. It's loose talk under oath.

If a lawyer says it, he knows better. Kavanaugh knows the difference between "witnesses say it didn't happen" and "no witness recalls it happening." Unless he's an exceptionally incompetent attorney, he blatantly lied under oath.

I have no opinion about whether one could convict him of perjury, but every law-trained senator knows damned well that he lied under oath during a Senate hearing regarding his confirmation. Most voted for confirmation anyway.

And this was for the SCOTUS. What a low bar the GOP have now set.

 

[Cavemonster]

Wouldn't a determination of whether he committed perjury depend on what the actual facts were (rather than what the Democrats were able to 'pin him down' on)?

I mean, if he claimed "the sky is red", even if the Democrats weren't able to show (at the time) he was lying, it would still be perjury.

In this case, I think the bar for successfully establishing perjury would have been very high. His answers, like almost everything Trump says, were formulated to leave some tiny shred of "plausible deniability". Even if the denial wouldn't be plausible to an actually reasonable imaginary neutral person.

Do you remember when Donald Trump claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya? Then you remember incorrectly. All of his public statements were framed as questions or things he heard other people supposedly claim. Now. Trump and Cavanaugh obvious both do outright lie, but they do a whole lot more formulating things that give them room to deny having made any stance. Kavanaughs phrasing and framing contained enough weasel words and sloppiness that a case for perjury would be difficult.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This looked like the best thread to bump for this latest news:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says FBI's Brett Kavanaugh investigation may have been 'fake'

After former President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh in July 2018, multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, notably Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that while they were teenagers, Kavanaugh held her down on a bed, put his hand over her mouth, and attempted to take off her clothes. Kavanaugh denied all of the accusations.

Trump authorized the FBI to investigate Ford's claim, but the bureau never interviewed Kavanaugh, Ford, or other witnesses who offered to testify, and its report was never made public. In a letter sent last week to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Whitehouse said the Senate Judiciary Committee is reviewing the FBI's handling of the accusations, and would like the Justice Department to provide support.

And Wray refuses to comment. There was a tip-line but all the calls were ignored.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has refused to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about whether the FBI followed its procedures for investigations, Whitehouse said, and "such stonewalling does not inspire confidence in the integrity" of the probe

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the Biden thread:

FBI facing allegation that its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh was ‘fake’

A Democratic senator has asked attorney general Merrick Garland to facilitate ‘proper oversight’ into concerns on the investigation

I'm reposting this in the Kavanaugh thread I just bumped.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

that should be a reason to fire Wray.

The FBI cannot let itself get used to whitewash nominees.
The Senate needs to have reliable information if it is to decide to confirm or not, especially to a life-long appointment.

Not that Republicans would have voted Kavanaugh down under any circumstances ...

 

[Ziggurat]

If a person were completely innocent, then why wouldn't they want an investigation to 'clear their name'?

Because there's no guarantee an investigation would do that. An investigation which was inconclusive might be worse for them.

After all, convicts regularly ask for their cases to be reopened (and things like DNA tests done).

That's after they already lost, so there's nothing more to lose. And it's also about specific pieces of evidence that favor the defense, not an open-ended investigation.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah, I disagree with Zig’s positions a lot of the time but this ‘if you have nothing to hide?’ stuff is for the authoritarians.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, I disagree with Zig’s positions a lot of the time but this ‘if you have nothing to hide?’ stuff is for the authoritarians.

To be fair, Zig disagrees with most of his own positions as well, depending on the political party he's discussing. He didn't have a problem with the never-ending Bennghazi investigations, for instance.

Then again, nitpicking a 2 year old post in order to look like one has a point is a bit silly anyway.