Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Anastasis is a reasonable poster, so I’m going to assume someone put bath salts in his morning coffee. Drunk at a high school party and you’re a rapist, these are strange times. Last I heard she can’t even remember the year or location of the supposed assault, call me skeptical. 

Here is my line of reasoning:

1. The assault happened. She recounted the event on a few separate occasions in counseling situations where privacy protections were in play. I have zero doubt that she was a victim of some form of sexual assault.

2. She claims that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator, and his buddy DB Cauveux was also there.  Both deny. He said, she said. Circumstantial evidence suggests DB Cauveax like his drank. And probably Kavanaugh did too.  Yeah, I am the last person to criticize someone on that mark. There are longs lists of HS indiscretions that would preclude me from serving on SCOTUS.

3. If another individual at this meeting will testify that the party took place and that Kavanaugh and his buddy were there (a claim he denies) and that the girl was there and that Kavanaugh was shitfaced (a claim he denies indirectly), then I am forced to conclude that the testimony favors the young lady and not Kavanaugh.  This isn't a criminal courty, the standard is not reasonable doubt. I would not vote to convict in a jury setting with the evidence so far presented, but I would not vote for confirmation as a Senator if that fact pattern plays out.

 

I too am skeptical, but you bring a third party to the table to corroborate the aspects of the story that Kavanaugh is flat out denying, and well, he's toast. 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Letting this guy's appointment get to a vote is a political nightmare for Republicans.  There is no standard by which he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  There are enough serious questions about his integrity, including multiple instances that smell like perjury PLUS the accusations of a woman who initially brought evidence forward years ago and who tried to avoid the glare of the spotlight until it literally became too important to avoid, that it's absolutely the most reasonable thing in the world to say "enough, there are better candidates out there".  As it stands now, a "yes" vote looks like an endorsement of deceipt and sexual assault.  

If it goes to a vote, we have very strong circumstantial evidence that Kavanaugh is little more than the most efficient tool in the toolbox to accomplish a "hidden" agenda, and that ain't just Roe V Wade or immigration law.  It's something more nefarious.   Pay attention.

[alincoln 2371]

1 minute ago, Horn Dog said:

She is very credible. 

Based on what exactly?

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Here is my line of reasoning:

1. The assault happened. She recounted the event on a few separate occasions in counseling situations where privacy protections were in play. I have zero doubt that she was a victim of some form of sexual assault.

2. She claims that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator, and his buddy DB Cauveux was also there.  Both deny. He said, she said. Circumstantial evidence suggests DB Cauveax like his drank. And probably Kavanaugh did too.  Yeah, I am the last person to criticize someone on that mark. There are longs lists of HS indiscretions that would preclude me from serving on SCOTUS.

3. If another individual at this meeting will testify that the party took place and that Kavanaugh and his buddy were there (a claim he denies) and that the girl was there and that Kavanaugh was shitfaced (a claim he denies indirectly), then I am forced to conclude that the testimony favors the young lady and not Kavanaugh.  This isn't a criminal courty, the standard is not reasonable doubt. I would not vote to convict in a jury setting with the evidence so far presented, but I would not vote for confirmation as a Senator if that fact pattern plays out.

 

I too am skeptical, but you bring a third party to the table to corroborate the aspects of the story that Kavanaugh is flat out denying, and well, he's toast. 

I appreciate your reasoning as it’s well thought out, but your entire basis for such a conclusion is that 1 is correct, and that’s an unknown. If you can’t prove 1, the rest is circumstantial. 

[Horn Dog 9816]

1 minute ago, alincoln said:

Based on what exactly?

Holy shit.  Really?  

Take off your MAGA hat and pay attention.

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm just responding to your post as a general matter.  You implied that it is okay to take advantage of a girl if you're in high school because you're drunk since that's not rape.

I said what? I think you need to go back and read my post again, I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m not sure you understand what was said. 

[alincoln 2371]

2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Holy shit.  Really?  

Take off your MAGA hat and pay attention.

Pathetic and about what I expected

[DDD Dad 14331]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I said what? I think you need to go back and read my post again, I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m not sure you understand what was said. 

Not sure this merits a response, but what the heck.

I fully understand what you said and what you didn't.  Your statement implied as much given the surrounding circumstances that are currently a matter of public record.  

[DDD Dad 14331]

8 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Based on what exactly?

This is almost on sheeit level feigned ignorance.

"I haven't read any of the last two pages of comments or any of the recent news reports, but I'm going to come in here and ask questions (that have already been answered numerous times),"

[GHOSTUSER 361]

28 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Go to the scat site then faggot.

For Subliminal and NAIU’s sake please forego with the homophobic slurs creating a hostile environment here. I don’t like Subliminal at all but want all to participate. 

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not sure this merits a response, but what the heck.

I fully understand what you said and what you didn't.  Your statement implied as much given the surrounding circumstances that are currently a matter of public record.  

Well, you’re simply reading something into my statement that isn’t there. My issue was stating that he’s guilty of assault for simply being at this supposed party. 

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

For Subliminal and NAIU’s sake please forego with the homophobic slurs creating a hostile environment here. I don’t like Subliminal at all but want all to participate. 

It’s funny, my friend was kicked off this site for such comments. But he’s a conservative, so it’s different. 

[DDD Dad 14331]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s funny, my friend was kicked off this site for such comments. But he’s a conservative, so it’s different. 

No, it isn't (funny or different).  Comments like this are inappropriate and should be reported.

Edited September 18, 2018 by DDD Dad

[VRHorn 718]

At this point (after two statements) if he is determined to have been at the party, his credibility regarding the assault is approximately 0.

If he had said "I was at the party and knew her, but did not assault her" he would not be in trouble for having been at the party.

Don't be so obtuse.

[Horn Dog 9816]

1 minute ago, alincoln said:

Pathetic and about what I expected

Just fucking with you.. relax.  There are 4 criteria listed  below.  She is credible.  whether you believe her or not is a different question.

1.  Capable of knowing about subject that she is testifing about-  CHECK

2.  Present during event-  CHECK

3.  Qualified to be a reporter of the event-  CHECK

4.  Honestly relates affair fully as she knows it-  CHECK

 

 

credible witness

n. a witness whose testimony is more than likely to be true based on his/her experience, knowledge, training and appearanceof honesty and forthrightness, as well as common human experience. This is subjective in that the trier of fact (judge or jury)may be influenced by the demeanor of the witness or other factors. (See: credibility

CREDIBLE WITNESS. A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief. 5 Mass. 219 17Pick. 134; 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 336. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider whether he is capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which he testifies. 2. Whether he was actually present at the transaction. 3.Whether he paid, sufficient attention to qualify himself to be a reporter of it; and 4. Whether he honestly relates the affair fully as he knows it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth. 

[troph 24781]

Anastasis is a reasonable poster, so I’m going to assume someone put bath salts in his morning coffee. Drunk at a high school party and you’re a rapist, these are strange times. Last I heard she can’t even remember the year or location of the supposed assault, call me skeptical. 

Actually it’s pretty simple - If you’re a rapist you’re a rapist.

[Anastasis 23464]

15 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I appreciate your reasoning as it’s well thought out, but your entire basis for such a conclusion is that 1 is correct, and that’s an unknown. If you can’t prove 1, the rest is circumstantial. 

I see no reason to doubt 1 at this stage.  She had it documented by her marriage counselor years ago. I guess it's possible that this is some real long game shit playing out, but that's doubtful. The closest I can even come to a plausible scenario that frames this as a 100% politically motivated attack with no basis in the facts of Kavanaugh's involvement is still based on #1 being truthful, that she was a victim of sexual assault in the early 80s.   

[troph 24781]

I appreciate your reasoning as it’s well thought out, but your entire basis for such a conclusion is that 1 is correct, and that’s an unknown. If you can’t prove 1, the rest is circumstantial. 

She’d win in a criminal trial on point one. 12-0 unless you’re on the jury. No reasonable doubt.

Now who did it? No criminal liability yet but he’s hosed on the civil standard already

[retread 2951]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I dont think that you even need another accusation of sexual assault.  I think that one person who attended this party says "he was shitfaced at this party and the girl was also present" and he is done. 

Especially if you can find another woman who was at the party. In that case, he's done.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

I think it’s pretty telling that a lot of the public comments to NYT articles about this situation are alarmed about the impact of unsubstantiated allegations such as this with no prior pattern of conduct. A liberal newspaper with the vast majority of readers that despise Republicans.

I’m not psychologist but if someone is can they explain the phenomenon of repressed memory and the potential for sincere belief of something that actually didn’t occur. 

[sidis 9825]

7 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Those guys aren’t faggots, you’re a faggot though.

stahp

[GHOSTUSER 361]

7 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Those guys aren’t faggots, you’re a faggot though.

I’m reporting your posts. That type of language has no place here.

[triplehorn 2664]

20 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Well, you’re simply reading something into my statement that isn’t there. My issue was stating that he’s guilty of assault for simply being at this supposed party. 

It's the lying that will sink him with Collins.  Setting aside questions of assault, he's not hedging with forgetfulness or drunken blackout.  He's doubling down at not being there in person.

[Huckleberry 32850]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I think it’s pretty telling that a lot of the public comments to NYT articles about this situation are alarmed about the impact of unsubstantiated allegations such as this with no prior pattern of conduct. A liberal newspaper with the vast majority of readers that despise Republicans.

I’m not psychologist but if someone is can they explain the phenomenon of repressed memory and the potential for sincere belief of something that actually didn’t occur. 

Yes, public internet comments. Those are always an accurate gauge.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m reporting your posts. That type of language has no place here.

Agree.  Dude needs a time out.  If time outs are a thing on surly.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

I've been to hundreds if not a thousand parties in my life.  I can recall vague aspects of most, as a sort of montage, and a few details about a small percentage of get-togethers, usually when somebody did something stupid, like climb the TV tower while wasted (hey to "Dazed & Confused", those things really happen).

There is no way I could recall if I had been at a specific party where my buddy Joe was or was not there.  Unless, of course, Joe and I had tried to rape a girl.  I'd probably remember that.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Yes, public internet comments. Those are always an accurate gauge.

More accurate gauge than here that’s for sure.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

More accurate gauge than here that’s for sure.

Probably not.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

More accurate gauge than here that’s for sure.

Gauge of what, exactly? 

[bad_teammate 13192]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's the lying that will sink him with Collins.

lol yes the GOP Senators will not tolerate such things as dishonesty

[retread 2951]

5 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's the lying that will sink him with Collins.  Setting aside questions of assault, he's not hedging with forgetfulness or drunken blackout.  He's doubling down at not being there in person.

I would love to have heard DOTUS' locker room comments to him yesterday about the incident.

[Chad Fuck 17661]

I remember how a punch of pol's, even some conservatives, said "we won't repeat the mistakes of Anita Hill."  Well, now's their chance.  But I expect...

 

[realgreggym 835]

1 hour ago, troph said:

 

Poor choice of words. You are biased and that’s a bigger issue for you and your faith than the courts political leanings. The guy is known liar already.

Pause and go read the red letter print in your bible dude.

 

He's biased? You already have Kavanaugh convicted without a trial.

BTW, ITex, thanks for your concern but I am not afraid to post here. I say what I want and then move on. There is an old Iranian saying...Never argue with a fool.  They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Thats this board. The reason that liberals in general hate freedom of speech is because most of them don't have the ability to defend what they believe when confronted with someone with a different point of view.  

Hillary is also a known liar as is Obama but they are on their side of the aisle so its ok. There is supposedly a police report filed against Ellison but silence. Teddy Kennedy murdered a woman and Gary Studds raped a young boy and had no idea why anyone was upset. And then if I remember correctly, he was reelected by his Democrat constituents another 4-5 times. They whine about Fox but have no problem when liberals in the media openly tried to help Hillary get elected.

Fox gets something wrong like they did with this woman and someone else with the same name and they apologize for the mistake. CNN finds out that their one source in a story admits he was wrong and they still stand by the story.  When ever there is some kind of tragedy, libs go running to try to blame Fox and conservatives but when a Bernie Sanders supporter shoots at republicans, no republican that I have heard  goes blaming Bernie and liberals.

And maybe worst of all, when things don't go their way, they always blame others instead of looking inward and trying to understand that maybe its not everyone else that doesn't get it, maybe its them. 

[Huckleberry 32850]

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

More accurate gauge than here that’s for sure.

So you're saying that public internet comments that agree with you are more accurate than public internet comments that don't agree with you. Seems reasonable.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

1 minute ago, realgreggym said:

He's biased? You already have Kavanaugh convicted without a trial.

BTW, ITex, thanks for your concern but I am not afraid to post here. I say what I want and then move on. There is an old Iranian saying...Never argue with a fool.  They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Thats this board. The reason that liberals in general hate freedom of speech is because most of them don't have the ability to defend what they believe when confronted with someone with a different point of view.  

Hillary is also a known liar as is Obama but they are on their side of the aisle so its ok. There is supposedly a police report filed against Ellison but silence. Teddy Kennedy murdered a woman and Gary Studds raped a young boy and had no idea why anyone was upset. And then if I remember correctly, he was reelected by his Democrat constituents another 4-5 times. They whine about Fox but have no problem when liberals in the media openly tried to help Hillary get elected.

 Fox gets something wrong like they did with this woman and someone else with the same name and they apologize for the mistake. CNN finds out that their one source in a story admits he was wrong and they still stand by the story.  When ever there is some kind of tragedy, libs go running to try to blame Fox and conservatives but when a Bernie Sanders supporter shoots at republicans, no republican that I have heard  goes blaming Bernie and liberals.

 And maybe worst of all, when things don't go their way, they always blame others instead of looking inward and trying to understand that maybe its not everyone else that doesn't get it, maybe its them. 

[troph 24781]

Not a fan of the faggot language from a straight guy just saying

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

He's biased? You already have Kavanaugh convicted without a trial.

Nobody here has advocated that he be taken to prison today.   The discussion is purely about whether he should be given a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. 

[triplehorn 2664]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol yes the GOP Senators will not tolerate such things as dishonesty

Generically speaking, yes.  But that's verbatim straight from Collins' lips re Kav lying about not being at the party at all.  Flake isn't voting yes if Collins has enough to tilt 'no'.  That's all it takes.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by triplehorn

[troph 24781]

Yeah I said he’s not convictable at this point. I was actually the one that made the nuanced point about civil vs criminal standards.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Gauge of what, exactly? 

I’m a subscriber and read both the NYT and WSJ. As an educated person who likes to be well versed in what’s going on in the world, I read both knowing they have different slants editorially. Even though I’m more conservative, I acknowledge that the Times is a very good newspaper and covers things especially well like international news.The typical NYT reader is more well-educated, wealthier and more liberal than the average person. They would be opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination. That a lot are having reservations says something in my book.

[Chad Fuck 17661]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Nobody here has advocated that he be taken to prison today.   The discussion is purely about whether he should be given a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. 

This.  No one expects a liberal to be appointed by this Congress.  But surely there's a decent conservative jurist out there who doesn't come with all this baggage.  We deserve better.  The GOP is trying to "solve" a short term political problem (can we get someone in who believes the President is untouchable?) with a lifetime appointment.

It is, no bueno.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is no standard by which he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Sure there is.  He has been appointed by a Republican President, what higher standard do you need?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m a subscriber and read both the NYT and WSJ. As an educated person who likes to be well versed in what’s going on in the world, I read both knowing they have different slants editorially. Even though I’m more conservative, I acknowledge that the Times is a very good newspaper and covers things especially well like international news.The typical NYT reader is more well-educated, wealthier and more liberal than the average person. They would be opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination. That a lot are having reservations says something in my book.

What makes you think that the "typical NYT reader" is the typical public commentor on the NYT website?  

Edited September 18, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[GHOSTUSER 361]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

Not a fan of the faggot language from a straight guy just saying

For the record, I do take my Bible and faith seriously and if you recall I was vehemently against the disgusting, mean-spirited, evil bathroom bill targeting the transgendered and quoted the Bible repeatedly in opposition to it when arguing with gsoda and others defending that bullshit. I have to check myself when it comes to politics as some of my instincts for wanting power conflicts with what I believe in. I’m probably in the wrong here and in other instances and that’s my fault 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[troph 24781]

There is no innocent and guilty language. Beyond all reasonable doubt isn’t the standard, he is not entitled to the position unless those questioning him prove a case. He’s not on trial. He’s not even in civil court. The standard is actually much much lower than even a civil trial of being found liable by a preponderance of the evidence. It’s his burden to prove he’s fit for a lifetime appointment. I’m willing to play by civil liability standards and by those he’s toast. If the appropriate burden is truly applied to him we shouldn’t be debating. He’s not proven he’s fit for the office. Legit claims have arisen about his impartiality, his participation in vetting candidates for judicial nomination from a political perspective and now sexual assault and lying about that. In a normal world without politics this guy is done.

 

 

[babysdaddy 2721]

Kinda catching up on all this.  Read in Politico the accuser's lawyer is trying to put conditions around her public testimony?  I agree with Hugo that I doubt we have any sort of testimony next week.

She was definitely assaulted but how to prove it was or was not Kavanaugh?  From a purely political standpoint, this lady is as brave as they come.  Given it is a he said/she said I fully expect for her character to be totally and completely assassinated.  She had to know that or should have been warned about it.  Kavanaugh has already been through the ringer....this lady is about to be totally and completely exposed.  

The play from Feinstein is pretty smart, politically, but disgusting from a humanity standpoint.  Had him under oath and could've asked all the questions she wanted.  Sat on it purely to put pressure on her colleagues.  

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What makes you think that the "typical NYT reader" is the typical public commentor on the NYT website?  

The paywall there is pretty stringent. It’s not as bad as the Statesman. It seems like you can’t read more than 1 article about the Horns before you get locked out 

[troph 24781]

For the record, I do take my Bible and faith seriously and if you recall I was vehemently against the disgusting, mean-spirited, evil bathroom bill targeting the transgendered and quoted the Bible repeatedly in opposition to it when arguing with gsoda and others defending that bullshit. I have to check myself when it comes to politics as some of my instincts for wanting power conflicts with what I believe in. I’m probably in the wrong here and in other instances and that’s my fault 

I don’t take an all or nothing position on any person including you. But your faith should trump politics. The same blind spot you have here others have on bathroom bills. Demand a pro life conservative judge that deserves your support. That’s all I ask of my conservative Christian friends.

[deech 2272]

I can't help but laugh at the R's complaining about the process after what they did with Garland.  D leadership sat on this nugget until the very last second because they knew Trump would only get one nomination hearing before the mid-terms.  It was good, smart politics.  The question is whether someone should receive a lifetime appointment now in a rushed fashion now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag.  The answer is unequivocally no.  It should be NO whether its an R nominee or a D nominee.  So obviously the Rs are going to pretend to hear both sides as they take pot shots at an alleged sexual assault victim and then try to rush everything to a vote.  The alternative is a nomination trying to get through the new Senate post mid-terms.  I agree with everyone else though that if anyone puts him at this party his nomination should be voted down.

IMHO there are so many brilliant legal minds in this country both on the R side and the D side.  WE don't need a Supreme Court nominee with perjury issues and/or sexual assault allegations when we can have one without.  WE as a country don't need to rush this is if this is still the guy the President wants.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I find it funny that so many conservatives who think every rumor about Obama or Hillary forwarded to them in a chain email was disqualifying for office, on the one hand, are so eager to hand over a lifetime SCOTUS appointment to someone with such a credible accuser who is going on the record.    If anything, the standard of proof of disqualifying contentions should be lower for a SCOTUS appointment, which is for a lifetime and for which there are many qualified alternatives available.    Our political system forces us to suck up big flaws about a political candidate because there is one or only a few alternatives.    That is not the case here; there are many unblemished, qualified conservatives who Trump could nominate as a replacement. 

And that goes to the larger point about how Rs have pushed this nomination without proper vetting.