Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

They are unreliable dipshit, that’s why they aren’t used.

Then why does the FBI use them as a matter of practice? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

The outsourced questioner thing is weird.   The point of her speaking to the Senate is so that she is able to answer directly to the Senators who are deciding whether to confirm Kavanaugh.   That's literally the only purpose.   Whether some non-Senator attorney satisfies her own concerns about the witness is really irrelevant. 

It’s not weird.  The person is just asking questions and is not the decisionmaker.  The senators are.  

[Gil Bang 25843]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I would think the attorney will question both.  

Are you quite sure the "staffer" is an attorney?  Not saying she isn't, but I haven't read that.  

[TexArcher 37414]

Republicans' continued righteous indignation about this is laughable.

The Republicans obstructed Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year for nothing resembling a legitimate reason.

But here we have an accused rapist who was nominated by a president who could be impeached for multiple reasons (emoluments, collusion, obstruction, take your pick) and who is clearly unfit to hold office.

And y'all are like, "fuckin' libtards blockin' our Jesus-given right to own the Supreme Court for the next quarter century - this is bullshit!"

Fuck all of you in your neck rolls.

Edited September 25, 2018 by TexArcher

[Gil Bang 25843]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Then why does the FBI use them as a matter of practice? 

as does the military, CIA, many private employers, etc.

[jimmyjazz 45430]

Does Iconoclast know what "probative" means?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

It’s not weird.  The person is just asking questions and is not the decisionmaker.  The senators are.  

That shows exactly why it's weird.   It's only the decisionmaker's questions that matter.  They are the ones who need their concerns and questions addressed, not some third party.   

[Gil Bang 25843]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Absolutely.  

Since we're outsourcing, would you be OK with the Dem members hiring their own mouthpiece to question BK and the accuser?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Since we're outsourcing, would you be OK with the Dem members hiring their own mouthpiece to question BK and the accuser?

Fine with me.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It’s not weird.  The person is just asking questions and is not the decisionmaker.  The senators are.  

Bullshit. Fucking cowards can’t ask their own damn questions. 

[tantric superman 4667]

That list looks like a simple, basic list of how a claimant might approach his or her claim, and areas the opposition might explore to attack the claimants credibility.

You could make a list like that for any retaliation or discrimination claim.

[Gil Bang 25843]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does Iconoclast know what "probative" means?

Only when it relates to his butthole

[scottsins 1951]

10 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

They are unreliable dipshit, that’s why they aren’t used.

I never said that they were reliable enough to be admissible in court proceedings.  You would know that if you could/chose to read words and understand their meaning.

[tantric superman 4667]

Although I disagree with JS 99% of the time, the most efficient way to do this is to have an "investigator" ask the questions. 

Just like in any employment matter where someone claims harassment, you have an investigator do all the factfinding, and he or she reports it back to management.  You don't get a group of managers and union guys all asking whatever question pops into their head.

You want Cory Booker wasting everyone's time on this?  I don't. 

[Anastasis 23329]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

Only when it relates to his butthole

I laughed. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Bullshit. Fucking cowards can’t ask their own damn questions. 

Oh they're gonna look great asking a woman personal questions about whether she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. The democrats will use those sound bites in every mid term election coming up. Even if she's not  be credible it'll still look like old white guys beating up on a helpless woman.  Of course they don't wanna have that on film... or video...or I phone...

[Gil Bang 25843]

Just now, tantric superman said:

Although I disagree with JS 99% of the time, the most efficient way to do this is to have an "investigator" ask the questions. 

Just like in any employment matter where someone claims harassment, you have an investigator do all the factfinding, and he or she reports it back to management.  You don't get a group of managers and union guys all asking whatever question pops into their head.

You want Cory Booker wasting everyone's time on this?  I don't. 

Are you certain that Booker won't get a bite at that apple?  The GOP hired a flunkie, there's no indication (that I've seen) that the Dems intend to outsource their work/questioning. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

45 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

Adam Mill

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courtson college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

This guy is a hack, his article sucks, and completely full of shit. He deserves no more words than that.

If I was Ford’s lawyers, I would simply show up at the hearing with my client and tell the committee my client is prepared to answer any question posed by any senator who has a question. If they choose to hide behind some female prosecutor mouthpiece, I would say my client respectfully refuses to answer some unknown person’s questions who will not even be making the decision and will answer any question to her posed by the committee of Senators who are ultimately deciding this issue.

Fuckin’ spineless cowards.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh they're gonna look great asking a woman personal questions about whether she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. The democrats will use those sound bites in every mid term election coming up. Even if she's not  be credible it'll still look like old white guys beating up on a helpless woman.  Of course they don't wanna have that on film... or video...or I phone...

If you’re too afraid to ask a question you either shouldn’t be a senator or you shouldn’t be supporting the shitbag you are currently supporting. 

[Captainant 27250]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh they're gonna look great asking a woman personal questions about whether she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. The democrats will use those sound bites in every mid term election coming up. Even if she's not  be credible it'll still look like old white guys beating up on a helpless woman.  Of course they don't wanna have that on film... or video...or I phone...

So you're saying you think it's a good thing for them to hide behind a hand-picked-definitely-neutral-trust-us prosecutor of sexual assaults to challenge an alleged victims claims? Rather than, oh I don't know, actually putting their face to their actions? That sure sounds like some alpha high energy shit right there.

[Gil Bang 25843]

 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Are you certain that Booker won't get a bite at that apple?  The GOP hired a flunkie, there's no indication (that I've seen) that the Dems intend to outsource their work/questioning. 

I'll admit, I'm not all that informed on the process.  I'm just saying it would work much better if one person just asks all the questions for all the witnesses.  Somewhat worse but still acceptable are one questioner from each party.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This guy is a hack, his article sucks, and completely full of shit. He deserves no more words than that.

If I was Ford’s lawyers, I would simply show up at the hearing with my client and tell the committee my client is prepared to answer any question posed by any senator who has a question. If they choose to hide behind some female prosecutor mouthpiece, I would say my client respectfully refuses to answer some unknown person’s questions who will not even be making the decision and will answer any question to her posed by the committee of Senators who are ultimately deciding this issue.

Fuckin’ spineless cowards.  

What difference does it make who questions her. Maybe they could get Donna Brazille to ask the questions wink wink. nudge nudge..  The questions are the questions regardless of who asks them.  Other than looking like they're beating up on her, there's no reason for them to not ask her the questions though.

[Gil Bang 25843]

Just now, tantric superman said:

I'll admit, I'm not all that informed on the process.  I'm just saying it would work much better if one person just asks all the questions for all the witnesses.  Somewhat worse but still acceptable are one questioner from each party.

You're assuming that they want the truth to come out.  You know fucking well that the GOP will go after the witness hard and softball questions to BK.  

Balance, we need it. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This guy is a hack, his article sucks, and completely full of shit. He deserves no more words than that.

If I was Ford’s lawyers, I would simply show up at the hearing with my client and tell the committee my client is prepared to answer any question posed by any senator who has a question. If they choose to hide behind some female prosecutor mouthpiece, I would say my client respectfully refuses to answer some unknown person’s questions who will not even be making the decision and will answer any question to her posed by the committee of Senators who are ultimately deciding this issue.

Fuckin’ spineless cowards.  

Is your client Ford or the DNC?  Why should Ford care who questions her?

[Goredho 17272]

I think both parties look like dogshit in this.  The Republicans obviously want to get the seat filled before the midterms.  The Dems obviously want to delay it until after the midterms.  Kavanaugh the SC nominee, Ford his accuser of sexual assault and whatever happened while they were at that party 30+ years ago are incidental to the above concerns.  Throwing out the SC seat and politics, what has been produced that corroborates Ford's story that Kavanaugh sexually assaunted her?  What makes this more than a 30 year old he-said, she-said?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If you’re too afraid to ask a question you either shouldn’t be a senator or you shouldn’t be supporting the shitbag you are currently supporting. 

Warrior patriot, Jimmy james......... dun dun dunnnnn.......

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What difference does it make who questions her. Maybe they could get Donna Brazille to ask the questions wink wink. nudge nudge..  The questions are the questions regardless of who asks them.  Other than looking like they're beating up on her, there's no reason for them to not ask her the questions though.

Oh I don’t know. Because maybe they’re the ones making a decision on whether to not to appoint someone for life to to the most important court in the land.

I realize to a partisan hack like yourself this is meaningless but some of us take it a little more seriously.

If they got a question then ask it. If they dont they can shut the fuck up and just vote their conscious like Ted told them to do. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by JimmyJames

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So you're saying you think it's a good thing for them to hide behind a hand-picked-definitely-neutral-trust-us prosecutor of sexual assaults to challenge an alleged victims claims? Rather than, oh I don't know, actually putting their face to their actions? That sure sounds like some alpha high energy shit right there.

For them it might be a good thing.  I've already said I see no reason they shouldn't be asking the questions, unless they're worried how the sound bites are used of them asking questions.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Goredho said:

I think both parties look like dogshit in this.  The Republicans obviously want to get the seat filled before the midterms.  The Dems obviously want to delay it until after the midterms.  Kavanaugh the SC nominee, Ford his accuser of sexual assault and whatever happened while they were at that party 30+ years ago are incidental to the above concerns.  Throwing out the SC seat and politics, what has been produced that corroborates Ford's story that Kavanaugh sexually assaunted her?  What makes this more than a 30 year old he-said, she-said?

Well, the 3 eyewitnesses she named saying they had no idea what she’s talking about make it more than he said she said. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Although I disagree with JS 99% of the time, the most efficient way to do this is to have an "investigator" ask the questions. 

Just like in any employment matter where someone claims harassment, you have an investigator do all the factfinding, and he or she reports it back to management.  You don't get a group of managers and union guys all asking whatever question pops into their head.

You want Cory Booker wasting everyone's time on this?  I don't. 

A Senate confirmation proceeding isn't really like an internal harassment complaint.   Senators have absolutely unfettered discretion over their confirmation vote, checked only after the fact by voters.   And the point of the testimony isn't to elicit the most precise accounting of what happened according to some third-party questioner, but to satisfy the particular interest of each Senator.   They are certainly allowed to outsource that, but it's an odd way of handling this, given that the questioner does not know what is in the minds of each Senator, which is the only thing that matters in this proceeding. 

Do I want to hear from Cory Booker?   Not really, but I think he should exhaust the questions on his own mind, and I think his constituents should hear what those questions are.  Because that is the essence of this political confirmation process. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Is your client Ford or the DNC?  Why should Ford care who questions her?

So you would let your client testify on questioning by an unnamed, unidentified attorney whose credentials or firm you don't know, with no time whatsoever to research the questioner or her background, and who was hand picked by someone  with a vested interest in going after your client?

[Captainant 27250]

Just now, Goredho said:

I think both parties look like dogshit in this.  The Republicans obviously want to get the seat filled before the midterms.  The Dems obviously want to delay it until after the midterms.  Kavanaugh the SC nominee, Ford his accuser of sexual assault and whatever happened while they were at that party 30+ years ago are incidental to the above concerns.  Throwing out the SC seat and politics, what has been produced that corroborates Ford's story that Kavanaugh sexually assaunted her?  What makes this more than a 30 year old he-said, she-said?

Well for one, we have a factual basis to not believe Kavanaugh based on his history of lying and giving misleading testimony while under oath. Also known as perjury. On top of that, Ford has some corroborating circumstantial evidence which on its own isn't persuasive, but when considered with the rest of what's come out about Kavanaugh (booze hound, Renate alumnus, "I was a virgin through high school"), becomes more believable. 

[Gil Bang 25843]

1 minute ago, Goredho said:

I think both parties look like dogshit in this.  The Republicans obviously want to get the seat filled before the midterms.  The Dems obviously want to delay it until after the midterms.  Kavanaugh the SC nominee, Ford his accuser of sexual assault and whatever happened while they were at that party 30+ years ago are incidental to the above concerns.  Throwing out the SC seat and politics, what has been produced that corroborates Ford's story that Kavanaugh sexually assaunted her?  What makes this more than a 30 year old he-said, she-said?

That's what it appears to be.  So fucking what?  Listen to both, question both, and see who has more credibility.  You motherfuckers act like BK is ENTITLED to a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.  He's interviewing for a fucking job. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, nor should it be.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, lemonlime said:

So you would let your client testify on questioning by an unnamed, unidentified attorney whose credentials or firm you don't know, with no time whatsoever to research the questioner or her background, and who was hand picked by someone  with a vested interest in going after your client?

He would if his client was a dem or lib. Then its ok. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This guy is a hack, his article sucks, and completely full of shit. He deserves no more words than that.

If I was Ford’s lawyers, I would simply show up at the hearing with my client and tell the committee my client is prepared to answer any question posed by any senator who has a question. If they choose to hide behind some female prosecutor mouthpiece, I would say my client respectfully refuses to answer some unknown person’s questions who will not even be making the decision and will answer any question to her posed by the committee of Senators who are ultimately deciding this issue.

Fuckin’ spineless cowards.  

Republicans are not going to fall into the trap of how our enemies want to portray us as mean whiteys questioning this woman. The coward is the accuser if she is not going to testify. She doesn’t dictate the proceedings. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Oh I don’t know. Because maybe they’re the ones making a decision on whether to not to appoint someone for life to to the most important court in the land.

I realize to a partisan hack like yourself this is meaningless but some of us take it a little more seriously.

If they got a question then ask it. If they dont they can shut the fuck up and just vote their conscious like Ted too them to do. 

Oooh excuse me seeeeeeerious, warrior patriot, Jimmy James Dun dun duuuuuuun......  

[Gil Bang 25843]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Republicans are not going to fall into the trap of how our enemies want to portray us as mean whiteys questioning this woman. The coward is the accuser if she is not going to testify. She doesn’t dictate the proceedings. 

Jesus, you're just a horrible human being. 

[lemonlime 5503]

5 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I think both parties look like dogshit in this.  The Republicans obviously want to get the seat filled before the midterms.  The Dems obviously want to delay it until after the midterms.  Kavanaugh the SC nominee, Ford his accuser of sexual assault and whatever happened while they were at that party 30+ years ago are incidental to the above concerns.  Throwing out the SC seat and politics, what has been produced that corroborates Ford's story that Kavanaugh sexually assaunted her?  What makes this more than a 30 year old he-said, she-said?

Her therapist's notes from a few years back.  

[TexArcher 37414]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Republicans are not going to fall into the trap of how our enemies want to portray us as mean whiteys questioning this woman. The coward is the accuser if she is not going to testify. She doesn’t dictate the proceedings. 

And this right here is why so many victims don't come forward.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oooh excuse me seeeeeeerious, warrior patriot, Jimmy James Dun dun duuuuuuun......  

Wow didn’t mean to get under your skin that much. You should have shot of whiskey or something. Maybe top it off with a bong hit. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Her therapist's notes from a few years back.  

The ones that say she was attacked by 4 unidentified men?

[dOUblewide 101]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Her therapist's notes from a few years back.  

The doesn't corroborate her story.....that corroborates that she told someone else the same story. lol

[Captainant 27250]

Just now, dOUblewide said:

The doesn't corroborate her story.....that corroborates that she told someone else the same story. lol

Why would she lie about something like this in a couples therapy session six years ago just to potentially tank a supreme court nomination? If anything, the fact she talked about this in confidence to a therapist so long ago only adds to her credibility, not detracts from it.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Republicans are not going to fall into the trap of how our enemies want to portray us as mean whiteys questioning this woman. The coward is the accuser if she is not going to testify. She doesn’t dictate the proceedings. 

Man you guys are too obvious. It’s not about whether she’s telling the truth. It’s about how good you look truth be damned. 

Fucking immoral imbeciles. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Just like to say for the record Trump is illegitimate, Gorsuch is illegitimate, and Kavanaugh would be illegitimate due to Trump being undemocratically installed by foreign influence operations and him directing a criminal conspiracy to violate US campaign laws. 

There, I said it. 

But whatever, no one cares about that shit. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Wow didn’t mean to get under your skin that much. You should have shot of whiskey or something. Maybe top it off with a bong hit. 

Yeah cause your last post certainly wasn't a spittle filled keyboard bash-o-rama.  You're a funny guy.....

[Gil Bang 25843]

3 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

The doesn't corroborate her story.....that corroborates that she told someone else the same story. lol

You don't suppose a therapist can offer an educated opinion as to whether it actually happened?

Edited September 25, 2018 by Gil Bang

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah cause your last post certainly wasn't a spittle filled keyboard bash-o-rama.  You're a funny guy.....

Thanks!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just like to say for the record Trump is illegitimate, Gorsuch is illegitimate, and Kavanaugh would be illegitimate due to Trump being undemocratically installed by foreign influence operations and him directing a criminal conspiracy to violate US campaign laws. 

There, I said it. 

But whatever, no one cares about that shit. 

Ohhh shit ..... not the Russians ............... a-gain !!!!!!!