Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobperk said:
I think Amy Comey Barrett (sp?) would have been a better choice.
Click to expand...
I wanted Trump to name her because I strongly believed that whomever Trump nominated was going to face a rape allegation. I strongly felt that the far left abortion lovers would find someone willing to sacrifice themselves to railroad a nominee.

I felt it would be a lot harder for them to railroad a woman.

Honestly, I hate to say it, but if Republicans were smart, they would nominate a woman for the next few justices, otherwise a male nominee has a good chance of facing some kind of sexual harassment/ sexual assault allegation. All it takes is one abortion activist willing to go to jail and lie.

NOTE: I do beleive sexual assault allegations should be treated seriously. But I don’t beleive this charge. I beleive something may have happened to her, but I strongly beleive this to be a case of mistaken identity.
 
EricF said:
Roe v Wade isn’t going away. Legal abortion isn’t going away.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how old you are, but I am 62 and when I was a kid in school the common wisdom was that Soviet Communism and the Berlin Wall would never go away either. We were taught that the people in East Germany and Poland and Russia loved living under tyranny as much as Americans loved capitalism and they would fight to the death to stop freedom.

Turned out not to be so accurate.

Of course abortion can be outlawed. This atrocity isn’t engraved in stone at all, and is likely to come down quicker than anyone would guess. when it does.
 
The reasons for my conclusion fall into two groups: reasons relating to her testimony, and reasons relating to his testimony. I fully admit that I’m fallible; but my conclusion is what it is, and my belief about what has to happen next flows from that. So here are my reasons for believing Dr. Ford:
  1. She testified credibly, coherently, and specifically about what happened. Everything she said was perfectly consistent with testimony of similar victims in this type of situation.
  2. She was a reluctant witness. She didn’t want to come forward because of her fears (correct ones, as it turns out) regarding how she would be treated once her name became public. She only came forward because her name was leaked.
  3. She has nothing to gain by her testimony.
  4. Her testimony is backed up by records from her therapist from years ago. This is not a last-minute invention for political or other purposes. No, the records don’t name Judge Kavanaugh; but they detail the incident with sufficient information to show that this isn’t a last-minute invention. In the law of evidence, the therapist’s records would be admitted despite the hearsay rule to rebut an express or implied charge of after-the-fact fabrication. No, this isn’t a trial; but the legal principle shows how the records support her trustworthiness.
 
  1. An innocent man would have demanded an investigation. If he’s innocent, the investigation would find nothing to corroborate her accusation, but it might well find holes in her story. So why didn’t he demand one? Because he’s hiding something.
  2. An innocent man would’ve insisted on the testimony of the other person (Mr. Judge) alleged to have been in the room — especially since he has said (albeit not under oath) that he remembers no such thing. If Judge Kavanaugh had asked the Committee to subpoena Mr. Judge, you know they would have done so. Clearly he did not want it to happen. This tells me that either (A) Mr. Judge’s testimony would’ve hurt him on this charge; or (B) Mr. Judge’s testimony might have supported him but would have sunk him in some other way.
  3. An innocent man would not have attacked the Democrats. This is basic legal training, which you can bet your bottom dollar he knows. If the facts are on your side, present the facts. If the law is on your side, explain the law. If the facts and law are both against you, attack the integrity of the other side. His paranoid conspiracy theory that it’s the Clintons behind all this (seriously, can’t we get past them at some point?) just makes him even less credible. Look, of course the Democrats are attacking him — just as the Republicans would be doing (were doing for seven years) if the situation were reversed. The question is “Did he attack her?”, not “Who’s out to get him?”. But the Democrats and how they acted are irrelevant; that’s a matter of politics. What’s relevant is which of these two witnesses is telling the truth. But he went after them instead.
  4. He testified quite clearly, directly, and specifically that he was not a blackout drunk — that he likes beer but never drank to excess as described by Dr. Ford. But his classmates and friends are coming out of the woodwork to say that that is absolutely not true. He drank. A lot. To the point of excess. This undermines his credibility tremendously, especially because it’s one of the central points at issue.
 
  1. His testimony about the slang terms (devil’s triangle, etc.) is not credible. They’re sex acts. Not drinking games. This again undermines his credibility.
  2. His demeanor during his testimony was inconsistent with his story of innocence. Yes, he can be forgiven being upset at this accusation. But he was almost out of control. I didn’t see an innocent man saying gee-that’s-really-terrible-and-I’m-really-sorry-for-her-but-it-just-wasn’t-me; I saw a man on the verge of his life’s dream watching it get snatched away by someone he didn’t consider worthy of accusing him.
    (Side note: That was not proper judicial demeanor. He was really losing it up there).
    And here’s the thing: he has been down in the dirt before. To act like this was an outrageous accusation unprecedented in politics was sheer chutzpah. When he worked for Ken Starr he prepared questions for Bill Clinton that even the Republicans thought went too far. So the outrage now at these questions is clearly manufactured. Which detracts from his credibility.
  3. His contemptuous treatment of the female Senators did not help his case. Asking him whether he ever drank to the point of blacking out was an obvious and relevant area of inquiry given the accusation, and as a lawyer and judge he would know that. His response should’ve been either yes or no. Asking the Senator “No. Have you?” was offensive and legally incorrect. And I could not help noticing that he treated women worse than men.
  4. In my experience, accused people who launch ad hominem attacks the way he did during his testimony are betraying a guilty conscience. If he attacked her, he did something horrifically wrong. If he didn’t attack her, he did not. What the Democrats and media did after the fact, and whether they should’ve acted the way they did, is irrelevant. But that’s where he focused his testimony: on the wrong he says the Democrats are perpetrating on him. That’s a classic distraction technique. And innocent people don’t need distraction techniques.
  5. A separate distraction was talking about his family. Yes, I feel badly for them. It’s especially hard to imagine what his daughters must think and how hard it must be for them. But, again, what’s with the distraction technique? Not necessary if you’re innocent.
Look, obviously I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t in the room. You may read things differently. Maybe he attacked her and is lying now; maybe he attacked her but legitimately doesn’t remember it (but is lying about drinking to excess); maybe she has the wrong guy. But this was a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land; and he Did Not Handle It Well. Dr. Ford’s testimony was believable; Judge Kavanaugh’s was not. In a criminal case, he might be acquitted because of the high burden of proof applicable in criminal cases. But this isn’t a criminal trial. This is a public deliberation over whether to put him on the Supreme Court. The burden is on him to show his worthiness. He failed.

I hope this helps. God bless.
 
Diaconia said:
Because women are hardly ever accused of such things
Click to expand...
That’s changing big time. Look at the Asia Argento case.
And when politics enters the room, expect the other side to do anything to keep a judge they don’t like off the Supreme Court bench.
Shoot, i wouldn’t be surprised if they got a woman to come out and say Amy Barrett made an unwanted lesbian pass at her.
 
Let us pray that Ruth soon retires so Trump can replace her with Amy.

Pack the court with pro-life Catholics.
 
The clock is ticking. There is a chance the dems could win the senate this November then no pro life candidate will get a hearing. If we hold candidates up to the standards of saints , we will not get anyone approved. I think it is a case of mistaken identity and maybe the FBI will uncover that.
 
Godfollower said:
But this was a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land; and he Did Not Handle It Well. Dr. Ford’s testimony was believable; Judge Kavanaugh’s was not. In a criminal case, he might be acquitted because of the high burden of proof applicable in criminal cases. But this isn’t a criminal trial. This is a public deliberation over whether to put him on the Supreme Court. The burden is on him to show his worthiness. He failed.
Click to expand...
This is where I disagree with you. They were ready to vote him in before these allocations.

If they don’t vote him in, it will need to be because they found the allegations to be credible. Maryland doesn’t have a statue of limitations on sex abuse.

If the Senate doesn’t vote him in, it could give a Maryland DA reason to launch a criminal investigation. This could RUIN his life.

So must opperrate at this point as if this is a trial.

My real question is this: Sen. Feinstein could have & SHOULD HAVE confidentially acted on this when she learned about it. Then Senate could have conducted a secret/confidential investigation and got to the truth of it without this court of public opinion.

Furthermore, Senate Democrats announced less than 24 hours after his nomination that they would not accept him. Some of the things the Senator from Hawaii said about him BEFORE the allegations were atrocious, so he has every right to be ticked off.

I can tell you, if I was unjustly, unfairly, and PUBLICLLY being accused of a crime I didn’t commit - I would most likely be acting just like him and most likely would not have been as restrained as him. I would have most likely lost my composure big time because at that point the job would be the LAST thing on my mind.

Something must of happened to Dr Ford, but with a case of mistaken identity… or one of them is a great liar
 
Last edited:
A retired co-worker wants President Trump to nominate attorney Hillary Clinton. At least that way, she’ll actually be investigated… 🤨
 
Last edited:
Godfollower said:
Her testimony is backed up by records from her therapist from years ago. This is not a last-minute invention for political or other purposes. No, the records don’t name Judge Kavanaugh; but they detail the incident with sufficient information to show that this isn’t a last-minute invention. In the law of evidence, the therapist’s records would be admitted despite the hearsay rule to rebut an express or implied charge of after-the-fact fabrication. No, this isn’t a trial; but the legal principle shows how the records support her trustworthiness.
Click to expand...
The only thing in question, in my mind, was it Kavanaugh or someone else.
 
The problem I have with the allegation about Judge Kavanaugh high school years is that they really don’t make much sense.

To me it isn’t believable that Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge organized these weekly drug and alcohol fueled Rape Train parties in a nice neighborhood and none of the neighbors ever complained.

There is an old Latin phrase:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

When unbelievable tales are told, it makes the rest of it really suspect.

I would personally think the Senate really needs to say there is not enough evidence to destroy Mr. Kavanaugh’s life, career and family.
 
Godfollower said:
An innocent man would have demanded an investigation. If he’s innocent, the investigation would find nothing to corroborate her accusation, but it might well find holes in her story. So why didn’t he demand one? Because he’s hiding something.
Click to expand...
That is not true. He may have been told not to because it delays the process. If he doesn’t go with what the president could pull his nomination.
 
Last edited:
In Maryland, the statute of limitations for sexual assault at the time was one year. In fact, in the 1980s even the statute of limitations for attempted rape was only one year. He is facing zero criminal liability, and the Maryland State police have announced that they are not investigating him. So none of that is at issue.

I agree with you in this respect; I would be outraged if someone made such accusations against me. But lawyers and judges get outrageous accusations made against them all the time; they’re used to it.

If this accusation were made against me, I’d be very, very upset for about a day. But my testimony by the time the hearing occurred would have been something like “I watched Dr. Ford’s testimony, and I’m horrified. What happened to her was awful and should not happen to anyone. But she’s got the wrong guy; it wasn’t me.” I wouldn’t employ distractions; I wouldn’t make ad hominem arguments; I wouldn’t complain about the process (what, he didn’t know there would be political attacks involved?); and I absolute would have demanded a full investigation and a subpoena of the guy supposedly watching me commit this horrible act.

How the Democrats handled it is irrelevant. This is a serious accusation against someone facing a lifetime position of trust and honor. Either it’s true or it isn’t, and the shenanigans of the people taking advantage of the accusation don’t matter.
 
Godfollower said:
An innocent man would not have attacked the Democrats. This is basic legal training, which you can bet your bottom dollar he knows. If the facts are on your side, present the facts. If the law is on your side, explain the law. If the facts and law are both against you, attack the integrity of the other side. His paranoid conspiracy theory that it’s the Clintons behind all this (seriously, can’t we get past them at some point?) just makes him even less credible. Look, of course the Democrats are attacking him — just as the Republicans would be doing (were doing for seven years) if the situation were reversed. The question is “Did he attack her?”, not “Who’s out to get him?”. But the Democrats and how they acted are irrelevant; that’s a matter of politics. What’s relevant is which of these two witnesses is telling the truth. But he went after them instead.
Click to expand...
That is not true. His diary was very convincing. His only chance was to show righteous indignation. Have you ever been falsely accused. You seem to be able to know what innocent men do but you are wrong. This not a trial it is a public opinion spectacle.
 
Godfollower said:
An innocent man would have demanded an investigation. If he’s innocent, the investigation would find nothing to corroborate her accusation, but it might well find holes in her story. So why didn’t he demand one? Because he’s hiding something.
Click to expand...
You also have to understand that Brett Cavanagh is also a federal judge and knows the law.

The FBI only does back ground checks in these situations, and has already done 6 on him, now doing a 7th.

Furthermore, the sexual harassment charge would not be in the jurisdiction of the federal govt, nor the FBI. It would need to be the DA in Maryland. Dr. Ford could file charges in Maryland, causing an investigation. She could have done that easily. Trump could not stop that. But she didn’t… she insisted that the FBI (who doesn’t have jurisdiction in the sex assault of a 15 year old by a 17 year old) do an investigation.

Why didn’t she ask Maryland to do an investigation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top