Brett Kavanaugh

[cwolff]

The entire basis of wanting to question Kavanaugh has been "there are rape allegations!". The very instant those cries were appeased and it became clear that yes, in fact as the actual facts show, those allegations have no proof, you switched gears to "But look how bad he is!". And to do so, you held up a question as an example where Kavanaugh answered correctly that the reason he was answering questions was to answer for a rape allegation for which there was no proof.

The question of "Is there any proof that the allegations are true?" has been answered. They were answered a week ago and then again and again and again. You're now seeking to punish someone for a crime they did not commit because they answered an investigatory question regarding allegations by stating that the purpose for the questioning was those allegations. You further quoted that answer as evidence of a lie.

That logic isn't even backwards. It's completely absent.

I didnt switch. He's no good based on his background without the rape.

Youre making assumptions here.

Also, the question of rape proof isnt the question. More to it than that. I'm at work and cant explain it more but will try to give a better reasoning later

EDIT: Looks like I weighed in on this after the rape accusations. The point is that it's not about the rape alleged or otherwise. I don't think he's fit for the job and I wish this were why his nomination is in dispute.

It's a he-said she-said and the GOP is determined to keep it that way while they plow through this rape thing to get their activist judge on the bench for life. Is Kavanaugh a reliable witness anyway? What's the story with that and his financials? Is it all settled and answered satisfactorily? I've not seen much about so am assuming it has been.

Ya, I assumed he was probably just a regular judge with a long history on a bench then the more I read the shittier this sounds. He's a partisan hack who doesn't belong anywhere near the supreme court.

I've also been seeing ads both for and against him as well as a picture of a "Women for Kavanaugh" bus. It's a disaster that SCOTUS picks have become a political campaign. It was and will always be political but damn. It's gotten out of control.

[Parkbandit]

I didnt switch. He's no good based on his background without the rape.

Youre making assumptions here.

Also, the question of rape proof isnt the question. More to it than that. I'm at work and cant explain it more but will try to give a better reasoning later

You could have just said "I don't like him because he isn't a crazy liberal like me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and saved yourself a bunch of time.

[Neveragain]

I didnt switch. He's no good based on his background without the rape.

Youre making assumptions here.

Also, the question of rape proof isnt the question. More to it than that. I'm at work and cant explain it more but will try to give a better reasoning later

[Parkbandit]

[time4fun]

Flake said if Kavanaugh lied at all during his hearing his nomination is over.

When did he say that?

[Fortybox]

When did he say that?

[Androidpk]

When did he say that?

When 60 Minutes interviewed him earlier.

(CNN) Sens. Jeff Flake and Chris Coons said in an interview that aired Sunday that if the FBI investigation into sexual assault and misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh finds that the judge lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his testimony on Thursday, his nomination likely would not move forward.

"If Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nomination's over?" Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" asked Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Coons, a Delaware Democrat, who are friends.

"Oh yes," Flake said, nodding.

Coons added, "I would think so."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/polit...ion/index.html

[Androidpk]

Charles "Chad" Ludington, a North Carolina State University associate professor, [BA, Yale '87; MA, Columbia '95; M.Phil, Columbia '97; Ph.D, Columbia '03], who used to interact with Kavanaugh while the two were at Yale, told the Washington Post and New York Times Sunday the judge had been untruthful when he told the panel last week he had never "blacked out" because he frequently saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.” .... "I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail."

[Fortybox]

Charles "Chad" Ludington, a North Carolina State University associate professor, [BA, Yale '87; MA, Columbia '95; M.Phil, Columbia '97; Ph.D, Columbia '03], who used to interact with Kavanaugh while the two were at Yale, told the Washington Post and New York Times Sunday the judge had been untruthful when he told the panel last week he had never "blacked out" because he frequently saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.” .... "I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail."

OMG - this is it. You found the silver bullet PK!



Omgomgomggogkjenhkwsdnqaw lkrthis is it!1111infinity

[cwolff]

Washington (CNN)In a memorandum to Republican senators, Rachel Mitchell says a "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring a case against Brett Kavanaugh based on Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegation given the evidence presented to the Judiciary Committee.
Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans who questioned Ford last Thursday, cites inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.
…
"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," she wrote. "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."

Here's what Mitchell's saying. It'll make all the rounds on Fox and places like PC. I get what she's saying and she's right. At this point it's a weak criminal or civil litigation case.