Former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests Kavanaugh should not sit on Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
With OJ they had a case.
Click to expand...
They failed to get a conviction at the standard of guilt in a criminal trial, but succeed in a civil case linked to the same crime. Whatever you think about weighing the evidence in the Kavanaugh case, it is clear that beyond a reasonable doubt is not the only relevant standard of guilt. An that happens to be the point at issue here.
 
I’m really not sure what you think you are saying.

With OJ, they had a case that covered all the bases. Your best argument would be justice was not served in the criminal trial due to incompetence by prosecution,
 
Theo520 said:
I’m really not sure what you think you are saying.
Click to expand...
Read the thread. The idea that the only allegations that should be heard are those that rise to the level of proof in criminal cases, is untenable The well-known OJ case provides a vivid example.
 
Theo520 said:
The current generation of elite law students will one day become judges themselves. If they remain committed to the circular logic of #BelieveSurvivors, the rule of law is in trouble.
Click to expand...
The ones who are actually bright enough to become judges aren’t buying into hashtag anything.
People who glom onto that stuff end up working for nonprofits or in politics.
And the smart ones won’t be actually becoming judges for about another 20 years, so they have a lot of time to learn and grow.
 
dvdjs said:
Stick with the thread. OJ was alleged to have committed serious crimes.
Click to expand...
And he went to court for it.
dvdjs said:
At the level of proof required in the civil court the verdict went against him fin for offenses linked to the felony crime.
Click to expand...
And he went to court for it.

Why do the victims and their lawyers not want him to have his day in court? As for the hearings, it was found that there was no evidence, no corroborating evidence, that he committed any of the crimes he was accused of.
 
You know, in the OJ case, I had trouble w one thing. The time frame 1015 to 1056 from murder, till the limousine driver saw a 6ft-200# man. 41 minutes to kill, remove blood from clothes ( or not), get home 2 miles away. Get upstairs & take a shower. His white Bronco was not parked in driveway.
The mysterious man went beside the house & lights were turned on. The next beep from limousine driver, OJ answered. I believe he did it! I think he may have had help? His older son? Obviously, it was enough time.
God bless you.
Kavanaugh was falsely accused w no corroboration by FORDS FRIENDS! A secret letter was carelessly handled or leaked, after the testimony. Before the prep, for the vote occurred. 30 hours of testimony. 6 background checks. Ford & Kavanaugh will have their names smeared in history. All is not over on Ford. Drunk witnesses, passed out, that took 6 days to convince herself her image was true. 10 gang rapes…too phony. This was an ugly, delay tactic to postpone vote till after midterms, gain seats, become majority & put Garland on the seat. It was too obvious. Plus, no corroboration.
God bless all
 
Cannot investigate when there is no location.

When no witnesses.

No time or date.

No corroboration … zero.

When no one knows how the complainant got to or from the non-scene.

An accusation with zero specifics.

Zero.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Cannot investigate when there is no location.

When no witnesses.

No time or date.

No corroboration … zero.

When no one knows how the complainant got to or from the non-scene.

An accusation with zero specifics.

Zero.
Click to expand...
Well, she did offer witnesses and all three were interviewed about the incident.
So they did conduct an investigation to the extent possible.
 
Last edited:
Worth repeating … collected by Theo 520:

Why I don’t believe her (Ford). The big ones are her refusal to share her best evidence (therapy notes, polygraph) and lying about the front door and knowing how polygraphs work. Not surprised Monica denied being coached since it was for working at the FBI.
  • She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks
  • She’d been drinking.
  • She changed the year of the alleged attack
  • She named 4 people, but had no backers
  • She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.
  • She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.
  • She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.
  • She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph
  • She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes
  • She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post ] multiple times
  • Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean , who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired. She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her.
  • She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment .
  • She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times.
  • Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay
  • She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.
  • She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.
  • She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one
  • She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump.
  • She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.
Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Why do the victims and their lawyers not want him to have his day in court?
Click to expand...
The matter at hand was the hearing. I think that your notion that the only evidence of misconduct that should be brought forward is evidence that is part of a court proceeding is nonsensical, dangerous, and ultimately meaningless., since the standard of proof are different in various venues. Should someone press charges against Kavanaugh, then he is entitled to his day in court.
 
tweedlealice said:
Kavanaugh was falsely accused
Click to expand...
For what it’s all worth…

Someone once said that when you interview two or more eyewitnesses to the same car accident, you begin to wonder about all of history.

As a physics major I am careful of stating things as fact. Theory would be more meaningful IMO. My own feel is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all theories, all things considered.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The matter at hand was the hearing. I think that your notion that the only evidence of misconduct that should be brought forward is evidence that is part of a court proceeding is nonsensical, dangerous, and ultimately meaningless., since the standard of proof are different in various venues. Should someone press charges against Kavanaugh, then he is entitled to his day in court.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. The evidence for the hearing was extensive- 7 FBI investigations, a committee investigation, and additional hearings.
Based on the lack of evidence discovered in these many investigations, the committee and the Senate determined that Justice Kavanaugh was not guilty of these accusations.
That is the process. Is it the same as a court procedure, criminal or civil? No. But the presumption of innocence is a right each of us enjoys. And in this case, no corroborating evidence was presented to undermine that presumption.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
the committee and the Senate determined that Justice Kavanaugh was not guilty of these accusations.
Click to expand...
No. They approved his nomination.
Click to expand...
Because the evidence did not show guilt. It didn’t even show the possibility of guilt.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Because the evidence did not show guilt.
Click to expand...
At what standard? If you are fine with a standard as low as substantial evidence then that is not clear. And if you were, it is not clear at all why you continually seek referral to the MD police. Moreover, as a had said before, the Senate was not adjudicating guilt but approval a nominee, who is not entitled to the job: any doubt about the candidate is sufficient to say no.
 
Practically anything that is done in D.C. is something we can spin into a political battle.

I want a thorough investigation because I think it’s the right thing to do, the GOP’s and Democrats’ political motives notwithstanding. I want it so that, if Brett is not guilty of the allegations, it may show itself more indubitably and convincingly (if he is not guilty, what is there to be afraid of? Let a thorough investigation vindicate that.), and so, if he is guilty of the allegations, that any clues or corroboration may reveal themselves.
 
It was thorough, there just isn’t anything to investigate beyond the witness statements already taken.
  • One person says she was groped at a party
  • Her three named witnesses have no memory of the party, let alone a groping.
  • Her friend clearly said she never met or knew Kavanaugh.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that there wasn’t anything left to be investigated, and as evidence point to the fact that multiple former classmates/acquaintances of Kavansugh attempted to reach the FBI seeking to be interviewed.

There is no prima facie reason to turn them away. To give just two examples, for all we know, there are other people who could either confirm or challenge the July 1st entry on Kavanaugh’s calendar, or other people who could confirm or challenge the assertion that Kavanaugh and Ford knew each other while in high school.

The point is to gather multiple testimonies and cross reference them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top