Supreme Court of the United States

[Bernie Brewer]

And all of the recent posts fall under the heading of “And, this is why we can’t have nice things!”

[DMT]

And all of the recent posts fall under the heading of “And, this is why we can’t have nice things!”

Not really sure what this means, but I'll pose the same question to you I posed to BG, why is it excusable that he lied repeatedly under oath?

[nots]

Not really sure what this means, but I'll pose the same question to you I posed to BG, why is it excusable that he lied repeatedly under oath?

I don’t see anyone making the claim that lying under oath is excusable. I do see some folks disagreeing with your contention that he lied. Do you have a specific statement that he made you believe is a lie, along with someone clearly, factually refuting it?
There are things I am skeptical about in his testimony to be sure. There are also things in Dr Fords testimony I am skeptical of as well (her fear of flying seems to be destination dependent, her not knowing about the offer to hold the hearings in Ca also seems questionable). Not sure those should considered lies though.

[Bernie Brewer]

Not really sure what this means, but I'll pose the same question to you I posed to BG, why is it excusable that he lied repeatedly under oath?

Nope, not gonna do it. But I’d add that if you think one side is lying, why isn’t it fair for the other side to think the other side is as well. I’ve stayed out of these threads lately because there is nothing I can add that will change anyone’s strongly entrenched position on this issue. This whole Kavanaugh thing has become "a plague a' both your houses" and neither party is behaving with high honor and/or great respect for “We the people!”

[Teenwolf]

I don’t see anyone making the claim that lying under oath is excusable. I do see some folks disagreeing with your contention that he lied. Do you have a specific statement that he made you believe is a lie, along with someone clearly, factually refuting it?
There are things I am skeptical about in his testimony to be sure. There are also things in Dr Fords testimony I am skeptical of as well (her fear of flying seems to be destination dependent, her not knowing about the offer to hold the hearings in Ca also seems questionable). Not sure those should considered lies though.

Did you find her testimony that the whole issue came to a head when she insisted on installing a 2nd front door on their home credible? I found her story very logical and believable.

As to Kavanaugh lying under oath, it seems he knew about Ramirez's allegation, as there are text messages from before the story went public between him and the witnesses to the event. So he was potentially witness tampering, and the text messages, if they exist, offer definitive proof he knew beforehand, despite his claim " I heard about it after. After the story broke."

There are 2 options. Either he talked to the witnesses of the event before the allegation went public because there was an event!... but he still technically didn't "hear about the allegation" until the story broke... he just knew it would because he DID IT. But he would still technically be telling the truth under oath, despite being a disgusting person.

Or, he knew about the allegation in advance of the claim, and sought the witnesses early to discredit the false story... but that would make him a clear LIAR under oath.

Either he lied under oath or he's a sexual pervert. Or both. I'm open to alternative readings. Cheers.

[onejayhawk]

Either he lied under oath or he's a sexual pervert. Or both. I'm open to alternative readings. Cheers.

Try, she lied under oath. That solves all the inconsistencies. You don't need that, but it is a clear and sufficient reason.

I don't understand your position. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Bill Clinton was a sexual pervert and a rapist. You were squarely in his corner.

J

[Teenwolf]

Try, she lied under oath. That solves all the inconsistencies. You don't need that, but it is a clear and sufficient reason.

I don't understand your position. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Bill Clinton was a sexual pervert and a rapist. You were squarely in his corner.

J

Why would he be seeking a picture of him with Ramirez together at a wedding in July, before Ramirez had made the claim? He was specifically aware of the claims one way or another, and claimed he was blindsided. He's clearly perjured himself. It's all over the news right now.

[onejayhawk]

Fine. That does not address your defense of Bill Clinton or Hillary, his enabler.

J

[Judge Jude]

Why would he be seeking a picture of him with Ramirez together at a wedding in July, before Ramirez had made the claim? He was specifically aware of the claims one way or another, and claimed he was blindsided. He's clearly perjured himself. It's all over the news right now.

I'm pretty much done with this thread, and can't speak to the veracity of your claim.

but it is customary to provide a link to a reputable news source, and over and over I have found that your claims have not stood up under scrutiny. since it's late and I am not caught up on this topic, I want to give you a chance here.

(AND to the extent that the rawness of this issue might have made it difficult for you personally to maintain any objectivity - well, neither could any of us under the circumstances. it's not a criticism, and in fact US law specifically makes an effort to exclude jurors whose personal history might make them biased.)

again, I make no claim on the wedding/phone call issue. am too far behind and I'll never catch up. but providing a respected link only helps your cause. I recommend it at all times.

[Teenwolf]

I'm pretty much done with this thread, and can't speak to the veracity of your claim.

but it is customary to provide a link to a reputable news source, and over and over I have found that your claims have not stood up under scrutiny. since it's late and I am not caught up on this topic, I want to give you a chance here.

(AND to the extent that the rawness of this issue might have made it difficult for you personally to maintain any objectivity - well, neither could any of us under the circumstances. it's not a criticism, and in fact US law specifically makes an effort to exclude jurors whose personal history might make them biased.)

again, I make no claim on the wedding/phone call issue. am too far behind and I'll never catch up. but providing a respected link only helps your cause. I recommend it at all times.

You know, it's a funny thing about links.

I used to provide supporting links until the cows came home... most never read or respond to the links, which is slightly discouraging... but I noticed something else. When folks post links to their sources, people will openly mock those links as coming from biased sources before they even read the link! "Oh, HuffPo... a real bastion of truth!.... oh, The Hill, what great sourcing!"... I'm not posting links because I cant keep track of which sources are deemed reliable or not, and I'm really not into debating different sources' veracity. Usually it's simply an issue of time, unable to source links easily through my phone.

But I agree with your message, and I'll post a link for clarity when I get a chance.

[Teenwolf]

NBC broke the story "Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public"

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcn...amp/ncna915566

[Teenwolf]

Fine. That does not address your defense of Bill Clinton or Hillary, his enabler.

J

You're the one obsessed with the Clinton's. I've said nothing about them. In fact, the last time I mentioned a Clinton it was in reference to her campaigning for Andrew Gillum being a mistake. I think she's terrible, so let's focus on the present allegations.

[Judge Jude]

NBC broke the story "Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public"

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcn...amp/ncna915566

thanks for this. we'll see if it is refuted, but I read it and it meets my standard.

[B-Fly]

Baldgriff, the issue is that he's not being "hung" or even threatened with jail or impeachment from his current lifetime appointment on the federal bench. He's being vetted prior to a 'yes'/'no' vote for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court - a position to which he has no reasonable expectation of confirmation or entitlement. If he has been damaged by malicious lies, there are remedies for that in both our civil and criminal legal systems (defamation, malicious prosecution, perjury) - those avenues will all be available to him (and/or prosecutors). He absolutely under no circumstances has a basis to demand a "presumption of innocence" or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any Senator casting a vote on his confirmation or any member of the public weighing in on whether he should be confirmed. As a lawyer and federal judge, I sure as heck hope that Judge Kavanaugh himself recognizes that.

Do any of us know whether Kavanaugh is guilty of the attempted rape of Ford, whether he participated in deliberate intoxication or drugging of Ramirez to facilitate sexual assault, whether he participated in the kinds of chain rape activities/parties described by Swetnick? No, but we have evidence. We have testimonial evidence under oath from Ford. We have allegations from Ramirez and Swetnick. We have various former colleagues reporting his partying and drinking habits. We have involvement in a bar fight that goes to a pattern of potential loss of control/violence when drinking. The issue isn't the drinking. As you said, many of us have drunk to excess in high school, college or later. The problem is the alleged sexual assaults and the pattern established by the testimonial evidence that lends credence to the idea that this man was prone to aggressive behavior when drinking (to excess) and partying. His questionable testimony in response to questions about his drinking and his yearbook aren't damnable in a vacuum, but as evidence mounts that calls into question the honesty of his responses under oath, that hit to his credibility spreads to his denials of the truly abhorrent behavior described by his accusers. The behavior that I hope and believe is not reflective of "dumb stuff we all did in high school or college". I got drunk in college and law school, no doubt, but I never got aggressive or violent toward women or anybody else. The mounting evidence raises real questions re: Kavanaugh on that score. And while it may not be strong enough to merit a criminal conviction or impeachment from the circuit court, it certainly establishes risk and doubt and serious concerns about character and temperament that would more than warrant a Senator to vote 'no', independent of their assessment of his credentials and how he'd rule on cases before the Supreme Court.

[nots]

Baldgriff, the issue is that he's not being "hung" or even threatened with jail or impeachment from his current lifetime appointment on the federal bench. He's being vetted prior to a 'yes'/'no' vote for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court - a position to which he has no reasonable expectation of confirmation or entitlement. If he has been damaged by malicious lies, there are remedies for that in both our civil and criminal legal systems (defamation, malicious prosecution, perjury) - those avenues will all be available to him (and/or prosecutors). He absolutely under no circumstances has a basis to demand a "presumption of innocence" or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any Senator casting a vote on his confirmation or any member of the public weighing in on whether he should be confirmed. As a lawyer and federal judge, I sure as heck hope that Judge Kavanaugh himself recognizes that.

Do any of us know whether Kavanaugh is guilty of the attempted rape of Ford, whether he participated in deliberate intoxication or drugging of Ramirez to facilitate sexual assault, whether he participated in the kinds of chain rape activities/parties described by Swetnick? No, but we have evidence. We have testimonial evidence under oath from Ford. We have allegations from Ramirez and Swetnick. We have various former colleagues reporting his partying and drinking habits. We have involvement in a bar fight that goes to a pattern of potential loss of control/violence when drinking. The issue isn't the drinking. As you said, many of us have drunk to excess in high school, college or later. The problem is the alleged sexual assaults and the pattern established by the testimonial evidence that lends credence to the idea that this man was prone to aggressive behavior when drinking (to excess) and partying. His questionable testimony in response to questions about his drinking and his yearbook aren't damnable in a vacuum, but as evidence mounts that calls into question the honesty of his responses under oath, that hit to his credibility spreads to his denials of the truly abhorrent behavior described by his accusers. The behavior that I hope and believe is not reflective of "dumb stuff we all did in high school or college". I got drunk in college and law school, no doubt, but I never got aggressive or violent toward women or anybody else. The mounting evidence raises real questions re: Kavanaugh on that score. And while it may not be strong enough to merit a criminal conviction or impeachment from the circuit court, it certainly establishes risk and doubt and serious concerns about character and temperament that would more than warrant a Senator to vote 'no', independent of their assessment of his credentials and how he'd rule on cases before the Supreme Court.

All well and good, but then how can you justify voting for Menedez?