He's decided to not believe a sexual assault victim because it aligns with what he likes politically and for no other reason.
Kavanaugh Vote Now in Jeopardy
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
- Status
Huh? What planet do you live on? It wasn't Republicans saying that. In fact, several Democrats said they don't care if the FBI clears him. Democrats already destroyed his name, even if he's cleared. Every woman is believed by default.
However, if he's guilty, you can be sure the Republicans will not confirm him ... or if further investigations after this FBI investigation ends, Congress can and will impeach him. I think people forget that. Federal Judges are impeached regularly, it's just unheard of with SCOTUS.
That's why the Republicans aren't going to confirm him if the FBI finds dirt. But if the FBI doesn't find jack, he's likely going to be confirmed ... even though the US media will say the Republicans just put a rapist on the court, despite the FBI's findings.
Several Democratic Senators already say he's the greatest threat ever nominated to the court, even if the FBI clears him. This is why most knew the Democrats really did not care about this whole ordeal. It was only to smear his name, not actually investigate him.
The US media keeps mis-appropriating things to the contrary, and convincing people of facts that don't exist.
And the test reveals that is a lie. I'm referring to the recent poll that showed 54% of Conservatives do not care if he is guilty, and should be voted in regardless of what the FBI finds.
I'm living in reality, good sir. Not pretending to be outside of it like you are.
Really? Instead of telling us fairy tales about those Evil Boogieman Democrats, how about sharing those 'mis-appropriating things' that the equally evil Media is using to cleverly convince people of facts that don't exist.
You've chosen to not believe a man who says he is innocent and denied this allegation with every fiber of his being; all because it suits your politically.
You've labeled him as guilty without a shred of evidence presented.
He's the better man.
Actually that's not true at all. I look at the motives and the truthfullness displayed at the hearing and it's not even close comparing the two. I haven't decided on the other accusers yet but lean their way based on a history of actions from his youth and his willingness to lie about it as an an adult.
Oh so now you're a human lie detector? Another awesome super power you have!
There is no evidence to corroborate anything about this allegation. You are believing them because you want to politically. You are All-In on this Democrat/Feinstein smear campaign.
Just based on what the prosecutor released in her unsolicited statement this whole thing should be dismissed.
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has said Ford’s case does not meet the standard of evidence for a criminal trial nor does it meet the preponderance of evidence for a civil trial. Those are the standards of fairness our society has set and agreed upon to settle disputes and criminal guilt. As far as I’m concerned, unless new corroboration comes out, it’s settled in my mind. Now, let’s see what new shenanigans the Dems have for us this week.
This is what a female prosecutor who has pursued sexual assault convictions for 25 years had to say about this debacle Senate Hearing.
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.
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.
democrats will push to keep expanding this investigation until november as best they can. they are just hoping they can regain the senate and basically stale any possible supreme court nominee from trump. thats all this is about.
this investigation wont turn up anything new. i hope they confirm him immediately after and we can all move on.
this investigation wont turn up anything new. i hope they confirm him immediately after and we can all move on.
Even if the dems take the senate in november, Trump still has a great hand to play. Unlike Obama with Garland, Trump will have 2 years to present candidate after candidate just to prove that the dems are just obstructing. If I was him, I'd start with Mike Lee. He has already had numerous background checks and is thought of highly enough to be on the SJC. It would be very difficult for any dem to not vote for him because almost every one of them has made statements in the past about his character and knowledge.
No, he told documented lies. I can relist the evidence but it's been provided in this thread.
-No Yale connections
-No party on calendar like the one described
-Never had memory loss
These are all lies told under oath.
-Devils triangle drinking game
-Renate Alumnus
-many more
These are likely lies but not confirmed yet.
Meanwhile I don't need to be a human lie detector because Ford took one and was found truthful.
Trump needs Kavanaugh because of his expansive view of executive power. Including the crown jewel that a president can pardon state charges. Its the most important thing to Trump right now.
How do you know that one of the parties on his calender was consistent with her claims? The couple of details she gave about the house could be enough to disprove it (2 story house, sparsely furnished, etc)
I like how @fried-chicken brushed right over this 25 year prosecutor calling the entire basis of this allegation to be ridiculous.
It seems pretty simple, doesnt it. She says that not only is Ford lacking evidence and corroborating testimony, Kavanaugh has both.
The goalposts just keep moving and its pretty transparent why.
Because we have bitter partisan people like @fried-chicken trying to cling to things that he reads on HuffPo as fact.
I hate the way baby boomers have ruined America and Gen X sat by lazily letting it happen. I'm proud of millennials for cleaning up this shit show. Especially millennial women who identify as democrats at a 70/30 ratio.
We stay shook fam. That's a bad thing come November for republicans. Look what a bunch of people shook about a black president did in 2016. They brought the klan back from the dead. We got Nazis in America now. I'd be more concerned if we weren't shook. I want us to be shook. Use the anger to impact change. 2 shook women ended Kavanaughs run at supreme court when they confronted Flake.
There’s a theory that the one party in the calendar with Kavanaugh, Judge, and PJ at it was the one. That’s been debunked due to a number of inconsistencies with Ford’s account, not the least being that the party was at a house in Chevy Chase which doesn’t meet the spatial and temporal account Ford provides.
Sorry, it was in Rockville. And the theory was Sen Whitehouse’s. Here’s the debunk: https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/was-blasey-ford-at-a-july-1-1982-party-with-kavanaugh
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Really good breakdown. Highly recommend reading.
Really good breakdown. Highly recommend reading.
i thought it was hilarious when matt, cover up news storys of rape for harvey weinstein, damon did that snl skit....
It's so amusing to see Democrats already shifting the goal posts 200 yards to the left after realizing that the actual accuser and allegation has been totally debunked and deemed not credible by a 25 year prosecutor.
They have created this spectacle that is truly an affront to the credibility of the Senate itself.
They have created this spectacle that is truly an affront to the credibility of the Senate itself.
I agree that the goalposts have been moved and that this is certainly not worthy of a criminal investigation. From a legal standpoint, he is a much better witness than she is, having documentation and corroborating statements.
At the same time, his responses to generalized questions were lacking. In court, he probably wouldnt have had to answer most of them because his lawyer would have objected based on conjecture, leading, and relevance. The fact is though, that he did answer and a lot of his answers were deferential, which doesn't come across well to an average person.
If not for the politics of this whole thing I would probably not have much, if any, support for him, but due to the clear agenda from the left its hard to not question them even more.
Right, we’re talking about appointing someone for LIFE who has some VERY serious allegations against him. This situation hasn’t been properly investigated and the guy seemingly misled and obfuscated for much of the hearing. The fact that people wouldn’t take a little time to make sure of such a serious appointment is absurd.
Last edited:
There are so many logical fallacies in that it would take hours to list them all out. The biggest problem that I have is the way these authors, and people in general, throw the word "lie" around.
When under oath and penalty of prosecution, people don't come out and make absolute statements. They don't categorically say "this did not happen" unless they are absolutely sure that it did not happen. Even then, if a lawyer is crafting the statement, they won't say it that way. What they will say is "I do not recall" or "I have no knowledge". This way they avoid someone coming out and convincing a judge or jury that it did happen and you are guilty of perjury. It's how you protect yourself. You also avoid it if you just forgot or if it actually did happen but you didn't know.
Keyser said "I do not remember anything like that happening" and she was the closest person to Ford and was with her a good deal of the time and so it logically leads that she would've known if there had been such a party. So for Kavanaugh to say that "Keyser said it didn't happen" is not a "bald-faced lie" but an interpretation of the statements and context around them that is reasonable for anyone to make. It's the kind of thing that attorneys ask juries to do all the time.
For a "journalist" who is putting up a facade of impartiality (no matter how thin) to cast that as a "bald-faced lie" is a horrible mischaracterization of the situation and it is why so many people have lost all faith in journalism. Especially when it's part of a greater analysis the sets a standard of whole-cloth belief of Ford's story without any inspection because "its not inconceivable that it could've happened this way" and then parses in minute detail Kavanaugh's testimony and still has to misrepresent things to reach a conclusion. And why it's sad that so many of you educated people can look at garbage like this "analysis" and attribute any validity to it at all.
Sadder still that anyone is ok with the standard of proof for an accusation being "it's not inconceivable that it could've happened." Like 85 said, if that is the new standard, we are all going to end up in jail.
Do you have an issue with Feinstein holding it for weeks then?
Are you going to have an issue if the FBI comes back this week and says it's concluded and they didn't find anything new?
Is this not a case of, "show me the man and I'll tell you his crime" and you're more than happy for it to take as long as it needs to take until Trump withdraws the nomination because the ends justify the means?
Remember- the responsibility to PROVE this allegation, in one single possible way, is on the accuser. He was entitled to be generalized with his responses since the burden of proof doesn't lie with him. He's said that he didn't do it - period. It's not his job to prove his innocence against an allegation from 37 years ago that makes it utterly impossible to do so.
That's what tells you where these "very concerned liberals" actually stand on all of this. They have exactly 0 outrage for what Feinstein did, who didn't take this accusation seriously whatsoever, but are spewing faux outrage at Senate Republicans for calling this what it is - a partisan smear campaign.
Do not misinterpret my point, I absolutely do not think that Kavanaugh perjured himself as the left claims and know with total confidence that he would not be convicted of this. The issue is that he spoke with absolute certitude about some things but was deferential in others. The left knew exactly what they were doing here and thats why they didnt ask him a single question about the event. They were trying to raise doubt about ancillary issues and they did. They knew that the burden of proof was on them but didnt have to act within the bounds of a criminal or civil trial. Kamala Harris was the closest, but even she was clearly more political in her questioning than not.
I DO question how honest he was being in his answers about whether or not he had ever blacked out. I had to laugh at the questions about whether he had ever drank to the point of forgetting things: um, how do you ask someone a question about something they forgot, lol? In the end, none of it matters, quite honestly because being a teenage drunk is not something that precludes a person from being on the Supreme Court. Even being an adult drunk who passes out doesnt (see: RBG at SOTU address).
Right, he needed to answer honestly, especially since he was under oath. He didn’t do so. At best, the person who’s trying to be someone responsible for deciding the supreme law of the land has no problem with breaking the law himself...even while in court and under oath.
- Status
Similar threads
