Supreme Court of the United States

[B-Fly]

Ah, the illustrious "all jerkwad rapey white prep school guys look the same" defense.

[OaklandA's]

Whalen is an actual friend of Kavanaugh, is close with many top conservatives, and a former law clerk to Antonin Scalia. He's part of Kavanagh's confirmation advisory team. He's definitely not a nobody. He had access to the Facebook pages of Mark Judge and the doppelganger. He had access to their class yearbook.

And strangely, he seems to know the identity and address of the second female at the party - see his map that shows her residence that is 7 miles from the Columbia Country Club. I'm not sure who could have given him that information, since the named people (Kavanaugh, Smyth, Judge) all state they weren't there and don't even know when and where the party took place.

[Judge Jude]

B-Fly, you have a law degree, so help me out here.

taking the emotions out of it (if that's possible), how does someone informally accused of something testify first? what does he testify to? and if it's responding to a newspaper article, is that how the legal system works? and he's going to testify that he wasn't...... where?

I'm sure there's a reasonable answer. but I guess I'm used to thinking the protocol was someone formally filing a complaint, let's call it, and that then brings interest in getting a response from the accused.

I'm not using the names, because the names - and the case - aren't relevant to my question. see what I mean?

I realize this is not a criminal proceeding, but I still don't get it. and are they saying he will go first and third? I assume they'd have to bring him back once her story is heard.

[DMT]

B-Fly, you have a law degree, so help me out here.

taking the emotions out of it (if that's possible), how does someone informally accused of something testify first? what does he testify to? and if it's responding to a newspaper article, is that how the legal system works? and he's going to testify that he wasn't...... where?

I'm sure there's a reasonable answer. but I guess I'm used to thinking the protocol was someone formally filing a complaint, let's call it, and that then brings interest in getting a response from the accused.

I'm not using the names, because the names - and the case - aren't relevant to my question. see what I mean?

Which is exactly why there needs to be an investigation.

[Judge Jude]

I'm not against an investigation.

[DMT]

I'm not against an investigation.

Without one, it's just a charade so they can claim they heard her story and "weighed the evidence" before confirming him. But women won't forget.

[Fresno Bob]

Trump's not an idiot. He just plays one on Twitter.

J

I know two idiots

[onejayhawk]

I know two idiots

But you don't know Trump. Where is this going?

Without one, it's just a charade so they can claim they heard her story and "weighed the evidence" before confirming him. But women won't forget.

BS. The Republicans are already bending over backward to give her a formal hearing.

If she wanted a full investigation, we could have easily had one. instead, this was saved for the last minute.

J

[Mithrandir]

Without one, it's just a charade so they can claim they heard her story and "weighed the evidence" before confirming him. But women won't forget.

Yes they will.

[Teenwolf]

But you don't know Trump. Where is this going?


BS. The Republicans are already bending over backward to give her a formal hearing.

If she wanted a full investigation, we could have easily had one. instead, this was saved for the last minute.

J

FBI investigation into Anita Hill's accusations took 3 days.

Republicans delayed Garland 14 months.

You are ridiculous.

[DMT]

Yes they will.

Republicans are hemorrhaging female supporters.

[revo]

Some credit is due to the President, here, who is advocating for a hearing, speaking respectfully about the accuser, and not remotely suggesting that the allegation should be ignored or dismissed out of hand because of how long ago it occurred, or because of Kavanaugh's age (or alcohol impairment) per the alleged incident.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/polit...ser/index.html

And that lasted what, one day?

[DMT]

And that lasted what, one day?

Yea real surprising. His senior staff undoubtedly begged him to not attack her but he just can't handle not getting what he wants, like any other spoiled man-child.

[Sour Masher]

Yea real surprising. His senior staff undoubtedly begged him to not attack her but he just can't handle not getting what he wants, like any other spoiled man-child.

I'd bet good money that is exactly how it went down.

[onejayhawk]

FBI investigation into Anita Hill's accusations took 3 days.

Republicans delayed Garland 14 months.

You are ridiculous.

Do you remember what the FBI found? In that case, Anita Hill started with sworn testimony. In this case they tried to conceal Dr. Ford's name.

I give you Garland. That's one of the because-we-can issues that is fair only to the extent Democrats do the same sort of shit. In their case it was Bork 332 years ago.

J