• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Kavanaugh sworn in

As I said, it is hearsay as of now. It is very easy to say someone was a drunk. Anyone could say that about anyone unless they wore a body cam 24/7. Let's see the drunken photos, at least. I could say that about a dude I know who is a nuclear scientist (it would not be true, but I was close enough it would SEEM credible.)
 
its a job interview, to be employed by us, the public, as a civil servant on the highest court, not a criminal prosecution. what arent you getting? there is no standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" here. we citizens are interviewing him and seeing if we think he's an acceptable employee for the position.
 
the accusations are less important here than his reaction to them; belligerent, lying, acting like an entitled little bitch, ranting about how its all a giant conspiracy by the clintons, refusing to answer questions, showing up drunk, etc

again, this isnt a criminal prosecution.
 
Last edited:
"What Mr Trump was clear about, however, was that while Judge Kavanaugh may have had "difficulty as a young man" with alcohol, that alone shouldn't disqualify him from the high court.

Nobody, the president said, has questioned how the judge has behaved "in the last 20 years"."

does the president mean in the last 20 years before kavanaugh lied? (i'm confused :?)
 
tathra said:
the accusations are less important here than his reaction to them; belligerent, lying, acting like an entitled little bitch, ranting about how its all a giant conspiracy by the clintons, refusing to answer questions, showing up drunk, etc

again, this isnt a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking about whether he legally has due process. I'm asking about right and wrong.

In school, work, social life, and legally, should we as a society ask for proof when people make accusations? Yes or no?
 
tathra said:
its a job interview, to be employed by us, the public, as a civil servant on the highest court, not a criminal prosecution. what arent you getting? there is no standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" here. we citizens are interviewing him and seeing if we think he's an acceptable employee for the position.
Click to expand...


I dont know this system. Why is this position tied I with politics anyway. Shouldn't the Supreme Court Justice be completely separate from politics?
 
 
The first of those links are not convincing. After 3 of his hundreds of classmates whiffed on the drugged gang rapists accusations, several (in our severely partisan society) offer smarter/more believable accusations.

Several recently obtained emails. After he is on the court it should be looked into if they are genuine.

The last link is interesting and I actually have to look into it (I'm not going to refute that one off hand, I will need to actually research. The claims (from GQ) are certainly believable but require fact checking/some context on my and anyone elses part.)
 
I dont think kids who drink until they black out actually remember when they are middle aged that they did that. That's what alcohol does, but yeah if he is underplaying his teen antics in a bid to look good it did not work.


Surely at a job interview his professional career thus far would be of more importance.

If hes shown to be unsuitable because he is too biased then that should be the reason he is not getting the job and should be disbarred, his pre ious trials be mistrials etc.
 
lindsey graham is pushing trump to re-nominate kavanaugh for the SCOTUS position if he doesnt get the job this time. what in the actual fuck. re-pushing a nominee that failed because he's obviously unfit for the position? jfc
 
tathra said:
lindsey graham is pushing trump to re-nominate kavanaugh for the SCOTUS position if he doesnt get the job this time. what in the actual fuck. re-pushing a nominee that failed because he's obviously unfit for the position? jfc
Click to expand...

People who lose at running for the presidency can run again... HILLARY COME SAVE US lol

treezy z said:
us rapists
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh is a single human being.
 
cduggles said:
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.)
Click to expand...



cduggles said:
Can someone post a link to a story about the witnesses of Dr. Ford contradicting her story? I know two individuals mentioned it in the thread whilst addressing me.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Not ignored...just needed time to get back to this. It's a fair ask, but I didn't have any links at hand and trusted I'd come across another one before long.

RECAP: All 3 'Witnesses' Named By Ford And Questioned By FBI Deny Knowledge Of Party

[Smyth] truthfully answered every question the FBI asked him and, consistent with the information he previously provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he indicated that he has no knowledge of the small party or gathering described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, nor does he have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," reads a statement from Bruce issued Monday.

Keyser, a close friend of Ford's who was reportedly questioned by the FBI, previously denied being at the "gathering," too.

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,"

...

Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh's, likewise has denied knowledge of the party ? and the assault ? ever happening.

Under penalty of felony, Judge rebutted accusations made by Ford in a signed letter released on Thursday. "I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," he said.
Click to expand...

There's more in the link, including copies of the statements.
 
alasdairm said:
Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath & Must Be Held Accountable
Kavanaugh lied under oath, Sen. Patrick Leahy says
A Classmate Has Told the FBI That Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath About Knowledge of Yale Assault, Report Says
All of Brett Kavanaugh?s Lies
Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath

it's not hearsay. there's substantiation for all the claims of his lying.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart

upload_2018-10-1_19-2-7-jpeg.11364


I'm surprised nobody has brought this to the thread. Though, it is can be misleading as they don't distinguish how they graded 'answering' vs 'not answering'. If Ford says she "doesn't recall" or "can't remember" that's taken as answering the question, but if Kavanaugh gives an explanation (as opposed to a yes-no), it is graded as changing the subject.
 
yeah, i saw it but, as you note, it can be a little misleading.

it seems increasingly certain to me that kavanaugh lied under oath - perhaps numerous times - to the committee.

look at the evidence around the ramirez claim (that he exposed himself to her at yale). this nbc news report details communication between kavanaugh and other parties and directly contradicts sworn testimony he gave wherein he claimed he read about her claim in the new yorker.

i don't care that he had a beer or two at college - or even that he got black out drunk occasionally - most o fus have been there. but he appears to have lied about that too. his modest characterization of his own drinking has been directly contradicted by multiple friends and roommates.

his explanations of the terms 'boof' and "devil's triangle" are mundane but, again, he appears to have just lied about them.

his statements on the william pryor nomination appear to be, at best, incorrect. at worst, more lies under oath.

in 2004 he claimed that he had never seen "any documents that appeared...to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee". a number of outlets - including vox and the nyt - have reported that to be inaccurate based on emails between kavanaugh and a republican staffer.

many have become desentized to trump's lies because they span the entire spectrum from petty to egregious and because they're just so frequent. but this is the scotus we're talking about. it's absolutely fundamental.

alasdair
 
TheLoveBandit said:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this to the thread. Though, it is can be misleading as they don't distinguish how they graded 'answering' vs 'not answering'. If Ford says she "doesn't recall" or "can't remember" that's taken as answering the question, but if Kavanaugh gives an explanation (as opposed to a yes-no), it is graded as changing the subject.
Click to expand...
Looks like a video game to me. But for every blue streak that's gray matter popping up. Every red streak gets one closer to a fatal stroke.
 
Dr. Ford didn't want to testify. She did however, state that she felt it was her civic duty to come forward.

Considering this court might overturn Roe v Wade, maybe she wanted the person to decide what women have to do with their bodies to respect them. Or at the v least not be rapey. Just a guess.

Kavanaugh has a GoFundMe with over half a milllion dollars in it.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30220-go-fund-me-for-kavanaugh-exceeds-500-000

TLB: Thanks for link and statements. V excellent source.

Kavanaugh misstated the witness accounts in a legally significant way and he was (apparently) one of them. (I'll find a source)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top