Legal/scotus thread

[nsacpi]

Also you said 2 posts ago the "evidence" is piling up.

Can you share what you're referring to? I may have missed something as I've been traveling today.

specifically the sworn statements released by Ford's attorney and the new allegations by the third woman

[sturg33]

it is something I give some weight to...against that must be weighed the multiplicity of allegations...recollections of fellow students...sworn statements from people Ford discussed the attack with

I think anyone interested in learning the truth would want an investigation of the allegations

So Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and running a rape ring with several other people escaped the 6 background checks?

[nsacpi]

So Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and running a rape ring with several other people escaped the 6 background checks?

1. He didn't technically rape Ford. But it was an assault and arguably an attempted rape.
2. Ramirez has not accused him of rape.
3. The third woman claims he and Ford were "present" when she was raped.

But yes I would say it did pop into my mind why this did not come up in a the background check. I have some theories about that, but I would hope the FBI conducts a review of its procedures if any of these allegations turn out to have substance.

[sturg33]

specifically the sworn statements released by Ford's attorney and the new allegations by the third woman

What sworn statement?

The third allegation is again not evidence of anything. Y'all are fine calling an accusation proof and it's crazy

Also, the allegations themselves are something to behold.

A college-aged woman attended high school parties and witnessed several women getting gangraped by several men several times (and kept going to the parties!), and then was also gangraped by the same ring... And never speaks of it for 35 years

.. and doesn't name the people who raped her, just the person who was watching? And also doesnt remember where.

And none of this came up through 6 FBI background checks.

That's... A little off to me.

But in your world, that is evidence.

Here's the deal... If this is the accusation, then the goal should be to get BK in prison for the rest of his life, Cosby style. Bc if it's true, he's a monster who needs to die in prison.

Do you agree? Or do you move on if you get the nomination pulled?

[weso1]

I'm going to wait and see what comes of this new allegation before calling for anything. It's pretty far out there. I feel like it's either going to be the end of Kavanaugh or the end of Avanatti and maybe the end of the sexual assault stuff. It's the least believable of all the allegations, but claims to open up the potential victim to perjury charges.

[sturg33]

I'm going to wait and see what comes of this new allegation before calling for anything. It's pretty far out there. I feel like it's either going to be the end of Kavanaugh or the end of Avanatti and maybe the end of the sexual assault stuff. It's the least believable of all the allegations, but claims to open up the potential victim to perjury charges.

YOURE A RAPIST YOU PIG YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AND DIE

[nsacpi]

What sworn statement?

sworn statements by people with whom she has discussed the attack in prior years

[nsacpi]

This one strikes me as potentially the most significant since there is a claim of an email exchange, which presumably a geek squad (um forensics team) could verify:

Keith Koegler, who said he has known the Fords for more than five years and considers them close friends, said Ford told him in the summer of 2016 that she had been sexually assaulted in her youth. She told Koegler her attacker was now a federal judge. Then in 2018, shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, Ford named Kavanaugh in an email to Koegler and said he was considered a favorite for the Supreme Court.

[sturg33]

sworn statements by people with whom she has discussed the attack in prior years

But that's not corroborating anything.

[nsacpi]

But that's not corroborating anything.

1) tweets and sworn statements are not the same thing

2) the existence of an email would provide further corroboration

3) i would say sworn statements providing evidence of discussion of the attempted rape in prior years are a form of corroboration...there are 3 individuals who have sworn to this...a fourth if you count her husband...and a fifth if you count her shrink

[sturg33]

1) tweets and sworn statements are not the same thing

2) the existence of an email would provide further corroboration

3) i would say sworn statements providing evidence of discussion of the attempted rape in prior years are a form of corroboration...there are 3 individuals who have sworn to this...a fourth if you count her husband...and a fifth if you count her shrink

Ben's point I that we could all issue sworn statements that Ben said this about DF... But that doesn't corroborated it being true

Do these sworn statements outweigh the eye witness sworn statements?

[weso1]

This one strikes me as potentially the most significant since there is a claim of an email exchange, which presumably a geek squad (um forensics team) could verify:

Keith Koegler, who said he has known the Fords for more than five years and considers them close friends, said Ford told him in the summer of 2016 that she had been sexually assaulted in her youth. She told Koegler her attacker was now a federal judge. Then in 2018, shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, Ford named Kavanaugh in an email to Koegler and said he was considered a favorite for the Supreme Court.

I thought this was pretty much an unchallenged part of Ford's statement, that Ford told people before 2018 that she was assaulted. I don't understand how this info really changes anything.

[nsacpi]

Ben's point I that we could all issue sworn statements that Ben said this about DF... But that doesn't corroborated it being true

Do these sworn statements outweigh the eye witness sworn statements?

For me they do. Judge and But why not investigate the whole thing properly, including having the witnesses and people making the sworn statements testify before the Judiciary Committee. I have views as to who is likely lying in this situation, but there is uncertainty. Having an investigation and public testimony would reduce this uncertainty.

[sturg33]

Now the Democrats want BK to withdraw BEFORE Ford's hearing.

I thought they said "she deserves to be heard"

I agree. We need to hear from her under oath. It's the only allegation at the moment that I care about.

But I think the entire point of all this was to get rid of the nomination before Ford had to testify.

If she doesn't show up tomorrow, it's over.

If she does, and swears under oath the BK tried to rape her, well then I think the committee has every reason to vote no.

I predict she doesn't show up, under of the guise of "with the new allegations, we would like to wait for an FBI investigation"

(And by the way, the other allegations have nothing to do with Ford and should not stop anything)

That's my prediction. We will know more in 24 hours

[sturg33]

For me they do. But why not investigate the whole thing properly, including having the witnesses and people making the sworn statements testify before the Judiciary Committee. I have views as to who is likely lying in this situation, but there is uncertainty. Having an investigation and public testimony would reduce this uncertainty.

Why do second hand comments 30 years after the fact outweigh testimony to named witnesses?

Can you tell me why that would hold more weight?

[nsacpi]

I thought this was pretty much an unchallenged part of Ford's statement, that Ford told people before 2018 that she was assaulted. I don't understand how this info really changes anything.

3 new people. It certainly adds to the weight of evidence in favor of her allegations.

[nsacpi]

Why do second hand comments 30 years after the fact outweigh testimony to named witnesses?

Can you tell me why that would hold more weight?

I would say Judge is someone who needs to testify. I think he can shed a lot of light on matters. His reluctance to go beyond his statement speaks volumes. And not in Kavanaugh's favor.

[sturg33]

I would say Judge is someone who needs to testify. I think he can shed a lot of light on matters. His reluctance to go beyond his statement speaks volumes. And not in Kavanaugh's favor.

You didn't answer my question.

And didn't Judge provide written testimony like all the others?

[sturg33]

Come on guys

You don't have to be a crazy partisan to be rational

[nsacpi]

You didn't answer my question.

And didn't Judge provide written testimony like all the others?

I'm inclined to discount his written statement more than just about anything I've seen in this whole matter.