weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I have yet so see any evidence so far. I've seen questionable allegations and hearsay. I may have missed something though and something may still come out.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
I have yet so see any evidence so far. I've seen questionable allegations and hearsay. I may have missed something though and something may still come out.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Things that carry some evidentiary weight with me:
1) Mark Judge's writings
2) What Mark Judge's ex girlfriend recounted about an assault involving Judge and one of his friends
3) Kavanaugh's references in his own yearbook to Devil's Triangle
4) Account by Ford
5) Account by Ramirez
6) Email thread by Kavanaugh's Yale classmates wondering if the incident with Ramirez would get out
ymmv
I think just going back in this thread you've been more concerned with calling out the left and making this a political thing instead of focusing on the victims is the part I'm referring to. Plus you said even if these allegations are true you dont think it should disqualify Kavanaugh.
Its political if the dems do this. But it just came out Grassley and Co. knew about the allegations last week and still tried to ram through the confirmation vote.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...st-week-tried-to-accelerate-confirmation-vote
I have not seen you make any mention of this (if you did I am happy to be corrected). I've only seen you lambast the left for "making this into a political game"
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
btw the politics of this are disastrous for the president and the GOP...but there is a certain amount of poetic justice having this boomerang on a president who himself is a misogynist and predator and the party that nominated him...it will only get worse if they choose to dig in, which apparently is what their instinct is
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Ive said over and over and over again the Ford allegations are serious, should be heard, and if true, Kauvanaugh should be toast.
The Ramirez "allegations" are so incredibly weak that they shouldn't slow things down in the way the left wants them too.
I'm sure there will be others. This has clearly been a stall game.
I'm much much much more concerned about the precedent this is setting and what it will lead to.
If this stuff matters, then Booker and Ellison should be done right? And it's fair game to start interviewing every major players old college friends to dig up dirt, right? And any accusations are worth convicting, right?
Much like the nuclear option, the Dems aren't going to like the retaliation this will bring.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I mean dig in wrt kavanaugh...it would be smart to cut their losses and move to another of the finalists
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Mark Judge's writings only show that Kavanaugh partied. Something I believe to be true as well. This in no way is evidence of sexual predation.
Mark Judge's ex girlfriends comments were about Mark Judge and did not implicate Kavanaugh. She also did not say it was necessarily a sexual assault.
We don't even know what the yearbook thing is. It could mean anything.
The Ford and Ramirez accounts are questionable allegations. I don't consider allegations to be evidence.
What is the email thread? Don't think we've seen what it actually is yet other than students discussing the event. Could very well be nothing but hearsay.
So again I've seen no actual evidence to show that Kavanaugh was a sexual predator.
57Brave
Well-known member
Imagine Trump not hiring Flynn, nominating/ stubbornly supporting Kavanaugh or throwing paper towels
All un forced errors
Why?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
cuz he's an idiot
57Brave
Well-known member
Deep Throat: Then there must be something, mustn't there. Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/All_the_President's_Men_(film)
very timely
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
“After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women. … ‘I can’t stand by and watch him lie.’ In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, ‘Mark told me a very different story.’ Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. … (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he ‘categorically denies’ the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.)”
Seems to me Judge should be asked to testify under oath.
Seems to me Judge should be asked to testify under oath.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
As has been pointed out before, we’re not talking about a courtroom evidentiary standard here. Multiple accusations, if deemed credible, are enough to give pause to consideration of someone for a lifetime position historically requiring an elevated standard of honesty and character (which test I think Kavanaugh failed before the current mess).
But, to expand on SAV’s point about how your primary interest here seems to be owning the libs...Al Franken got bounced from the senate by his own party over a series of groping accusations. Did you forget that?
I agree that Keith Ellison’s situation warrants continued scrutiny, but you’ve mentioned Corey Booker what, three times? Let’s review: he says he tried to cop a feel at a high school dance, was rebuffed, took no for an answer and viewed it as a moment of clarity with regard to consent. He disclosed this himself. You’re trying to shoehorn that into an equivalence with what Kavanaugh is being accused of? Come on, man.
Last, for someone who’s pretty invested in the idea of biological and neurological differences between the sexes, the idea that you’re equating an unwanted physical advance by a woman with a man physically forcing a woman into a non-consensual sexual situation is kind of a head-scratcher.
Sturg also tried to make a tongue in cheek point about O'Rourke almost killing someone driving drunk years ago and how that shouldn't be used against him.
As far as I know Beto has been upfront and sincere in his apology for doing so. Trump has denied denied denied. So far Kavanaugh has denied denied denied. Franken apologized and got the ultimate punishment from his own party.
If Booker, whom I'm not even a fan of, openly disclosed this then it's not even comparable to Kavanaugh whose repetitive denial of any accusations makes it more serious for him.
As far as I know Beto has been upfront and sincere in his apology for doing so. Trump has denied denied denied. So far Kavanaugh has denied denied denied. Franken apologized and got the ultimate punishment from his own party.
If Booker, whom I'm not even a fan of, openly disclosed this then it's not even comparable to Kavanaugh whose repetitive denial of any accusations makes it more serious for him.
sturg33
I
You are working under the presumption that Kavanaugh is lying
And Beto lied about leaving the scene just the other night in the debate!
Re: Booker, it's okay to assult someone as long as you apologize?
Tough to keep up with all these different standards
sturg33
I
Equally as head scratching is the guy who says we need to go out of our way to ensure women and men are treated the exact same, but has different standards of inappropriate behavior between men and women.
The difference is, I don't actually believe I was "assulted"... It was a drunk college girl who got touchy and I left and that's the end of it. She's not a threat to society
Never said it's ok to assault someone as long as you apologize. You're the one going from extreme to extreme.
I'm saying someone who openly discusses it and admits it and opens themselves up for public scrutiny deserves whatever fate the public gives them (voters). But lying and denial doesn't give the public open scrutinization since were busy arguing whether it happened or not. And since Kavanaugh is not going to be given his position by voters directly, it's a bit iffy for Grassley and co to be trying to ram this nomination.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I’m not really sure what your position is. Surely you agree the allegations, if true, amount to assault. Why posit a false equivalence that you acknowledge is false? Unless you’re saying that the allegations don’t amount to assault.