Kavanaugh sworn in

[treezy z]

The hearing is going very poorly, it looks like a Stalinist show trial, and I look forward to people talking about "you could tell she was telling the truth! Look how much emotion she has!" But the facts haven't changed, the 4 named witnesses deny this ever happened.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

perjury is something that happens in a court

Correct. Perjury is not the term applied here, but is very similar to Making False Statements. Those that have provided written statements to the senate about these claims (witness denial, or accusers), as well as anyone speaking to the senate (hearings), as well as anyone interviewed by the FBI during the previous six background checks on Kavenaugh are subject to the Making false statements:

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. ? 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....

 

[Captain.Heroin]

So fake news is illegal, huh? Why isn’t Alex Jones behind bars?

 

[treezy z]

edit: Not responding to captain.heroin trying to change the subject

 

[Captain.Heroin]

It’s a question I wanted to ask TLB specifically. It doesn’t fit elsewhere in CEP well and this is where I thought to ask it.

 

[treezy z]

The thread you discredited yourself in?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

edit: Not responding to captain.heroin trying to change the subject

The thread you discredited yourself in?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

So fake news is illegal, huh? Why isn’t Alex Jones behind bars?

Can you clarify the question, please?

Or can I run with the assumption you are asking me if 'fake news' is Making A False Statement? If that's the case, you missed the basic premise. MSM speaks to the public, not a federal entity.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Im not conservative whatsoever, but what the Dems are doing with this false allegations is pathetic.

 

[alasdairm]

if they are false.

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the whole "innocent until proven guilty" apply to criminal proceedings only?

The Senators' job is to advise and consent. They can vote for or against, for whichever reasons they choose.

So there really is no "burden of proof". It's just pageantry.

 

[cduggles]

So much has happened.

TLB, I used "Kav" in quotes because that nickname was used in some frat boy defense of grabass perv-hood by one of his mates on social media. I actually thought you were having fun with that nickname. So it's all good, with me. I was more referencing that source, which I thought you were referencing.... I'm going to just let this be.

As stated in the article I quoted, the FBI collects allegations. It's tradition not to investigate further unless someone with the authority (in this case I think only Trump can trigger it) requests it. (See my post above.)

So yes, I think it's completely disingenuous for the one guy who could prompt an FBI investigation (Trump) to act like it couldn't happen. "The FBI can't do anything..." Yeah, because of him not wanting them to do so. Please.

After the whole "I was a virgin" Kavanaugh interview, and public commentary by teammates and roommates and schoolmates about Kavanaugh and his sloppy drunk behavior (and he completely denies ever being really drunk) is ridiculous.

So yes I have found Kavanaugh to completely lack credibility, but I've also actually followed this closely. I investigated like 4chan based on his interview, having multiple accusers with have corroboration by witnesses, etc.

And it annoys me that people in this thread are so sure it's a left-wing plot. Proof?

Also, Dr. Ford's testimony, which is corroborated by four individuals, and her polygraph showed her to be credible imo.

And Trump admitted he never gives accusers any credence because of accusations against him. (I tend to believe a guy who is taped stating he sexually assaults women and then is accused of doing exactly what he describes.)

Again, if the Dems had this opening with Gorsuch, they would have taken it. They didn't.

Kavanaugh is damaged goods at this point. There are other candidates who would sailed through.

But Trump thought he looked the part. Still does.

tl:dr
In truth, I think a thorough investigation by the FBI of witnesses under oath (with perjury penalty) is the best solution.

This process is grotesquely political now, and I'm not squeamish about it, but anyone who doesn't even acknowledge it is just an idiot or someone selling a story.

 

[JessFR]

At the risk of straying slightly off topic, I wish we'd stop using polygraphs. They're not widely used pretty much anywhere else in the world for anything. America's about the only place that trusts those stupid things for almost any purpose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the whole "innocent until proven guilty" apply to criminal proceedings only?

The Senators' job is to advise and consent. They can vote for or against, for whichever reasons they choose.

So there really is no "burden of proof". It's just pageantry.

You're correct. Personally I wish people would stop acting like there's only one standard of proof and that it's required everywhere and anywhere, it's total crap. Both in reality, and hypothetically.

I for one don't think the standard of proof for you to be a worthy individual for an extremely important job be that high. Now I realize that at first glance that may appear to contradict my point about polygraphs. But the thing about polygraphs is I don't see them as any level of evidence at all. An eye witness may not be great evidence, but I'd still consider them evidence to at least some degree. It still requires that a human make a plausible and consistent public accusation against someone. Whereas I don't consider polygraphs evidence of anything at all.

 

[cduggles]

Anything involving humans is so unreliable.

I believe polygraphs aren't admissible in court. However, I was impressed Dr. Ford was willing to take one, moreso than the results.

The biggest problem is that two people can see the exact same behavior and characterize it as "roughhousing" or something as opposed to sexual assault.

Different individuals experience different levels of trauma from an incident, for instance due to earlier trauma.

Anyway, Dr, Ford was impressive. I just don't think it matters as long as he's Trump's nominee and most men from Grassley's era are in power.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

kavanaugh stuttered during his denial... uh huh

Anything involving humans is so unreliable.

Meh, I wouldn't say that. But I respect your opinion as always

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the whole "innocent until proven guilty" apply to criminal proceedings only?

I believe it would also apply to civil proceedings, i.e. suing your neighbor for the $40 he owes you on Judge Judy and what not...but the gist is that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to your employer when they're potentially going to hire you, i.e. what kavanaugh is going through.

 

[JessFR]

Anything involving humans is so unreliable.

I believe polygraphs aren't admissible in court. However, I was impressed Dr. Ford was willing to take one, moreso than the results.

The biggest problem is that two people can see the exact same behavior and characterize it as "roughhousing" or something as opposed to sexual assault.

Different individuals experience different levels of trauma from an incident, for instance due to earlier trauma.

Anyway, Dr, Ford was impressive. I just don't think it matters as long as he's Trump's nominee and most men from Grassley's era are in power.

They aren't admissible in court, but to the best of my knowledge they are still used more in the US than almost anywhere else. And they're a joke and shouldn't be legitimized.

Yes people are highly unreliable, but polygraphs are even worse, they're like leaving a question up to a magic 8ball.

kavanaugh stuttered during his denial... uh huh



Meh, I wouldn't say that. But I respect your opinion as always



I believe it would also apply to civil proceedings, i.e. suing your neighbor for the $40 he owes you on Judge Judy and what not...but the gist is that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to your employer when they're potentially going to hire you, i.e. what kavanaugh is going through.

You're innocent until proven guilty in most civil situations, but the standard of proof is MUCH lower than say a criminal trial. So you might be assumed innocent, but it doesn't take nearly as much evidence to beat that assumtion.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I'm happy to see these accusations levied because apparently his anti-constitutional beliefs aren't enough to bar him from appointment. I don't care if they're true or not; if they keep an immoral, anti-American man out of the supreme court I'm happy.

I realize Dems would likely do this shit to any pick (Gorsuch got through smooth tho? Makes you wonder about Brett... Not to mention they went to the same school and Gorsuch managed to avoid any attempted rapes in his time there...) but that doesn't nullify the fact that Kavanaugh should be stopped. Let him go muck up things in his current job, and pick a TRUE conservative for the supreme court instead. Like I said, he had three other good picks, but instead he narrowed it down to the worst possible two he could from the bunch.

How is Kavenaugh the worst of the bunch? How are the others better? I'll admit, I don't even know who else is on the list, much less if they are better or worse, or why. However, I do see some recent requests by CH on who would be a good candidate at this point, perhaps you could offer your insights on it?

But, I will admit, the underlined parts above are why I had to go back a few pages to pull out the quote and respond. The idea that the ends justify the means is just abhorrent in my mind. The only grounds I see you presenting for why Kav 'should be stopped' is your view that he is against the Constitution. Again, we can revisit this with Ali's link, but we should never, ever, consider bending rules just to get the result you want. If there are reasons someone should be barred from the SC, or Presidency, or anything...those reasons should be able to stand on their own and drive the desired effect. If they aren't strong enough, then they shouldn't stop him/her. Simple honesty, and letting the truth decide. That's how it should be done, IMO. Always.

The only 'immoral' point I see you can make goes back to the accusations that are as yet unsupported.

The 'anti-American' point, from what I can tell, is based upon the interpretation of his article to the MN Law Review. If you haven't read it, and simply take other's word that he puts the President above all else, I can see how you'd come to that view....maybe. But do you have anything else to support the statement that he is Anti-American or against the Constitution? Or is the article the only reasoning?

I'm happy to see these accusations levied because apparently his anti-constitutional beliefs aren't enough to bar him from appointment. I don't care if they're true or not; if they keep an immoral, anti-American man out of the supreme court I'm happy.

Eh, while I get what you are saying, I really think that would a regretttable path to head down. I would much rather we judged these people based on reality and truth. You could argue that manipulating facts for political purposes (no matter how altruistic) is unconstitutional too. Either way, shouldn't upholding the truth- you know, the objective truth- be more important than upholding the sanctity of a political document?

Says the Australian who is often frankly baffled at the views of his American brothers regarding the constitution.

Like I said, he had three other good picks, but instead he narrowed it down to the worst possible two he could from the bunch.

Trump probably knew Kavanaugh was someone he could coerce through blackmail.

I appreciate your response...up to the last line. Was that intended as a joke? How on earth is there a mechanism for Trump to coerce Kavanaugh? IF Kav were placed on the SC, he would be further beyond the influence of the President - immune to any threats or promises from any President. Can you expand on what you meant, please?

^Fair enough. I would be upset if the allegations were somehow proven false, upset because it would be a mockery of the justice system and the American people at large. Upset because unsubstantiated rape claims are indeed a sick and terrible way to attack someone. I guess my vehement distaste for Kavanaugh got the best of me this time.

I'm not advocating the democrats to levy unfounded allegations, but I can't deny that I'm happy someone found something to hold off this vote.

Dropped the last few para from the quote, as I am not interested in who started it when. Quite honestly, people will dig as far back as can seeking to justify their perspective. Personally, I prefer to start with 'this is where we are today' and ask 'how do we get better from here'? And that is regardless of political parties, interests, or anything. Really, ANYONE can make the choice to continue digging deeper and flinging mud. The people I want as leaders are the ones who step above that and seek to improve the situation, not make it worse.

To the quote kept, your 'distaste for Kavenaugh' appears to run deep. I'd appreciate a better understanding of why. I appreciate you only really want legit accusations leveled (we will have to see how that plays out), but you appear to be judging first and hoping for facts to catch up at some point.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

TLB, Kavanaugh has made it clear in his published works that he believes in the empowerment of the executive branch over other branches. That's proof enough to me that he's against the spirit of the Constitution, which was painstakingly designed to avoid one branch becoming too powerful and resulting in a dictatorship akin to the monarchy our founding fathers so desired to escape.

Again, they'd be rolling in their graves at the thought of a president appointing such a judge to the supreme court. I believe Ali linked one of his writings in this thread.

You're somewhat right...and wrong. And yes, Ali linked it. Have you read the article? I hadn't. I'm pretty sure Ali hasn't either.

in that case, kavanaugh's appointment should concern you, his position on presidential power in particular:

in an article for the minnesota law review he wrote that congress should pass a law to exempt a sitting president from criminal prosecution or investigation.

if you're a sitting president who's currently under investigation, i imagine a bench candidate with this kind of view would be quite attractive

Here is where I know Ali didn't read it, and are likely just echoing what's been said. I finally read it, so thanks for providing the link. Yes, it would be attractive to a sitting president under investigation, but recall this was written in 2009, during Obama's presidency; and it was written based on the experiences of Clinton and Bush. His writing is irrelevant to who is actually in office. Yes, it would be appealing to Trump. I expect it will be appealing to any and all Presidents going forward given how both parties play dirtier with each opportunity.

Coming back to the underlined 'exempt' bit, let's refer to the actual article, shall we?

...it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office.

...

Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President. In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President?while in office?from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.

...

One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The President?s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President?s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.

Nowhere does he ever say 'exempt', other than when followed by 'while in office'. He clearly states a nobody is above the law in his opinion. If you read the article, you can see where this opinion of his became heavily influenced by watching the impact of the Paula Jones civil suit on Clinton and the distraction it made in keeping Clinton from his presidential duties. Now, personally, I'm not supporting Kavenaugh's opinion on deferral, but I can understand why he got to that idea - and remember, it's just a suggestion on how to get the gov't to function more efficiently. Kavenaugh is never in a position to MAKE such a law, unless he chooses to run for congress at some point. Ironically, the one branch he hasn't worked for.

Coming back to CG's point of 'empowerment of the executive branch over other branches', we now know CG didn't read the article either. The principles of his article are as follows:

Many of the contentious, bitter, and defining disputes of the forty-second and forty-third presidencies arose out of separation of powers issues that the nation has been contending with since the Founding. And it seems to me?from having lived and worked through some of those disputes?that this is a good time to attempt to discern some lessons for the fortyfourth and future presidencies.

...

Based on my experience in the White House and the Justice Department, in the independent counsel?s office, in the judicial branch as a law clerk and now a judge, and as a teacher
of separation of powers law, I have developed a few specific ideas for alleviating some of the problems we have seen arise over the last sixteen years. I believe these proposals would create a more effective and efficient federal government, consistent with the purposes of our Constitution as outlined in the Preamble.22 Fully justifying these ideas would require writing a book?and probably more than one. My goal in this forum is far more modest: to identify problems worthy of additional attention, sketch out some possible solutions, and call for further discussion.

...

• PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
• ENSURE PROMPT SENATE VOTES ON EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
• STREAMLINE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORGANIZATION AND ENSURE THAT OFFICIALS IN INDEPENDENT AGENCIES ARE MORE ACCOUNTABLE
• RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES HAVE LEGITIMATE AND SOMETIMES OVERLAPPING ROLES IN WAR AND NATIONAL SECURITY
• CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF A SINGLE, SIX-YEAR PRESIDENTIAL TERM

...

CONCLUSION
The challenges facing the forty-fourth President?like those facing presidents before him?are enormous and daunting. Separation of powers controversies like those that challenged
his predecessors will recur. It is a good time to take stock of those lessons, to examine our foundational structures, and to develop creative solutions to address the structural challenges of the future. I hope these ideas help advance that discussion.

I'm not sure of the reason he wrote this (perhaps as a 'teacher of separation of power law' being published?). I will point out the fact that it is his opinion, from an educated and experienced perspective, on options to improve how gov't works. He offers them up as talking points, hoping they gain traction to finding real solutions. And there are A LOT more than just 'exempt the president' being offered up.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

^I hadn't read the whole thing you're right. I still don't believe his views on that matter are right even after reading the full details though.

If I'm being perfectly honest, Kavanaugh and more specifically Barrett were the two I'd least support of the bunch because of their vocal Catholic beliefs, and I don't believe Catholicism (or any religion for that matter) has any place in one's interpretation of the law. Therefore, I believe they were compromised from the get go by being the 'activist' types as my father so likes to call RBG. I believe one or two of his other picks are Catholic as well (real strange that suddenly WASPs are excited about putting Catholics on the Supreme Court, shows how far they've all gone to achieve their 'goals') but haven't been nearly as vocal about their beliefs. If someone is going to be a high court judge, they need to be entirely secular and interpret the law with reason rather than belief.

Edit: Looking at the others he chose from, Thapar also would have been a god awful pick. I guess of the 'choices' he had he didn't have any real great ones.

So I guess it could be worse?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Can we take a closer look at what he actually offers as talking points and suggestions? Again, I strongly encourage anyone who wants to form their opinion on something beyond talking head soundbites to invest a little time and read the article. It's 33 pages, but half is just footnotes - the real text is about 15p. Not too difficult to digest.

PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS

This seems to be the tag line people are chanting, without understanding what he is actually proposing or why. He points out that the precedent exists in some military situations - so this isn't new ground (and while he doesn't make the point, the President as Commander in Chief does exist). Furthermore, based on what he'd seen with Clinton and Bush, the office of the President is a lot harder than most people imagine. His suggestion, in my understanding, is that while they are still subject to civil and legal lawsuits, that they be held off until the person is out of office so as not to handcuff the person from what is demanded of the position. And, he goes further to point out that if the actions of the person infringe upon or impact the position, we already have tools to address this through impeachment. He's not advocating for protecting a bad President, he's advocating to protect the office. Decent idea, but one I don't see anyone buying into since we all want the President to be held to the same standards all the rest of us are (I'm in that boat)...but none of us appreciate what the demands of the office are, and how they are impacted when we hold the person to our standards. Interesting concept, but not palatable for the American public. Besides, the only way for this to happen is through law from Congress. That can only happen if a party has majority with the President and wish to protect their leader. Given how so many non-partisan issues have become politicized by both sides over the years, one can only hope (faint hope that it is), that the parties BOTH see that no matter who enacts it, the other will use it against them when the majority shifts.