Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

at face value, everyone should be taken at their word.  However its hard not to take motivation into account.  Kavanaugh has a motivation to deny these accusations, but that doesn't mean he's lying.  I can't really see her motivation to make this up.  Perhaps there is some reason but I don't know it.

I also find it compelling if there are 2 other guys willing to say they are the ones (or at least 1 of them) who assaulted her.  Not many people will admit to a crime, especially in a state that may allow it to be prosecuted after this many years.  what is their motivation?  do they really want to help Kavanaugh that much?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this is going south.

 

Senate procedure question.  Is there any mechanism to have a full floor vote before Tuesday.  I don't see how the following market can possibly resolve YES, unless they skip typical procedures.

https://www.predictit.org/v2/markets/detail/4583/Will-the-Senate-confirm-a-SCOTUS-nominee-in-September

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why?  That’s what should be done.  

 

4 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Don't agree with Sack on much, but this is the correct and pretty much only response.

i get that, but with the rest of the republicans waxing eloquently during the break, i guess i was surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gil Bang said:

Her lawyers aren't taking any shit

 

I like them.  Do you lawyer types know who these lawyers are?  Are they well-known?

yeah, they are getting prickly. 

as is the prosecutor, who was obviously taken to task during the break to move things along establishing the conspiracy theory between dr ford and the democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Wow this is going south.

 

Senate procedure question.  Is there any mechanism to have a full floor vote before Tuesday.  I don't see how the following market can possibly resolve YES, unless they skip typical procedures.

https://www.predictit.org/v2/markets/detail/4583/Will-the-Senate-confirm-a-SCOTUS-nominee-in-September

Yeah, I don't see how they have a full floor vote by Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

at face value, everyone should be taken at their word.  However its hard not to take motivation into account.  Kavanaugh has a motivation to deny these accusations, but that doesn't mean he's lying.  I can't really see her motivation to make this up.  Perhaps there is some reason but I don't know it.

I also find it compelling if there are 2 other guys willing to say they are the ones (or at least 1 of them) who assaulted her.  Not many people will admit to a crime, especially in a state that may allow it to be prosecuted after this many years.  what is their motivation?  do they really want to help Kavanaugh that much?

 

There aren’t 2 guys willing to come forward and claim that responsibility.  If there were, we would know their names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty.  There is not a shred of proof being provided here today, nor at any point in any of this.

Does Corey Booker really want to get into what our "founding documents" state when it comes to an individual being accused of a crime?

This guy is a piece of shit.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McCroskey said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  There is not a shred of proof being provided here today, nor at any point in any of this.

Does Corey Booker really want to get into what our "founding documents" state when it comes to an individual being accused of a crime?

This guy is a piece of shit.

lulz

You seem confused. This is not a criminal trial.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  There is not a shred of proof being provided here today, nor at any point in any of this.

Does Corey Booker really want to get into what our "founding documents" state when it comes to an individual being accused of a crime?

This guy is a piece of shit.

You realize this isn't a criminal trial, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  There is not a shred of proof being provided here today, nor at any point in any of this.

Does Corey Booker really want to get into what our "founding documents" state when it comes to an individual being accused of a crime?

This guy is a piece of shit.

This isn’t a trial you fucking dunce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  There is not a shred of proof being provided here today, nor at any point in any of this.

Does Corey Booker really want to get into what our "founding documents" state when it comes to an individual being accused of a crime?

This guy is a piece of shit.

In a court of law.   Not in a job interview. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lulz
You seem confused. This is not a criminal trial.

Nor is he aware of the fundamental fact - something that has been true in our system of law going back 1,000 years, going back to England - that testimony IS evidence and IS proof. The credibility of that testimony is to be weighed by the finder of fact, but it is unquestionably evidence and proof.

So, other than him getting literally everything about this process wrong, that was a great post.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...