Legal/scotus thread

Chris Hayes
‏
Verified account

@chrislhayes
10m10 minutes ago
More
The possibility hangs over all of this, one I return to over and over, that Blasey Ford’s account is absolutely true and that Kavanaugh has absolutely no memory of it and thinks he has been falsely accused.
 
Emily Nussbaum
‏
Verified account

@emilynussbaum
5m5 minutes ago
More
Oh my god, he is trying to claim that the Renate Alumnus yearbook thing was a way to "clumsily show affection." This is clearly not true—why wouldn't she know about the reference, if that were so? Why even say this?
 
Hypothetical -- he wins the vote and is installed .


Will these hearings leave Kavanaugh legally culpable ?

Should (D) win the House impeached for perjury ?

I see a path where even if he wins this the **** storm is just getting started
 
Super said:
kavanaugh isn't going to jail. no one is looking for a perpetrator and potentially arresting the wrong person in this scenario. that's a major difference.
he's potentially being denied privilege to one of the most important jobs in the country based on previous poor judgement. he's also overwhelmingly partisan. Ford is not.
i understand he isn't accustomed to facing consequences, but nothing about what Dr. Ford testified to today comes off as a lie. This wasn't something she concocted last week.
Click to expand...

Deciding not to confirm him based on Ford's statement is taking a negative action against an accused based on the uncorroborated story of Ford. It's placing the requirement to clear their name on the accused. I don't care if you're deciding whether to give someone the death penalty or whether you should give your kid an ice cream cone, the same principles apply.

I don't think Ford is lying. I also don't think Kavanaugh is lying. I don't know if Ford's recollection isn't correct or if Kavanaugh was black out drunk and doesn't remember or if any other of a dozen different things happened. The point is that I don't know what happened and without something I don't believe that it's right to hold it against Kavanaugh.
 
Super said:
Chris Hayes
‏
Verified account

@chrislhayes
10m10 minutes ago
More
The possibility hangs over all of this, one I return to over and over, that Blasey Ford’s account is absolutely true and that Kavanaugh has absolutely no memory of it and thinks he has been falsely accused.
Click to expand...

I think, generally, the more he’s asked about alcohol use, the less credible he’s going to sound.
 
striker42 said:
Deciding not to confirm him based on Ford's statement is taking a negative action against an accused based on the uncorroborated story of Ford. It's placing the requirement to clear their name on the accused. I don't care if you're deciding whether to give someone the death penalty or whether you should give your kid an ice cream cone, the same principles apply.

I don't think Ford is lying. I also don't think Kavanaugh is lying. I don't know if Ford's recollection isn't correct or if Kavanaugh was black out drunk and doesn't remember or if any other of a dozen different things happened. The point is that I don't know what happened and without something I don't believe that it's right to hold it against Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

I thought Ford’s testimony was credible. I likewise think that Kavanaugh’s denials sound credible on their face, so I see where you’re coming from. I don’t know that it’s entirely fair in this case to put the entire burden of proof on the accuser in this case, though. I think it’s fairly evenly distributed between the two of them.

And while I do find his direct denials fairly credible, I think—based on multiple third-party accounts bets—his general explanations about his alcohol use, about the writings in his yearbook and (panning out a bit) his testimony about his career in the Bush WH to be less than convincing. So, on balance, I think he’s dug a hole for himself wrt credibility.
 
The FBI investigation stuff is just the Dem's attempt to put Kavanaugh between a rock and a hard place. If he says no he doesn't want one, he looks like he's hiding something. If he says he wants one he alienates the Republicans.

The Dem's strategy is the stall and hope they take the Senate. If they can get an FBI investigation they can stall until the election. They know the FBI will find nothing and we'll be right back here. If they take the Senate and can defeat Kavanaugh, they hope that there wouldn't be enough time in the lame duck session to push a new candidate through. It's a hail mary.
 
Julio3000 said:
I thought Ford’s testimony was credible. I likewise think that Kavanaugh’s denials sound credible on their face, so I see where you’re coming from. I don’t know that it’s entirely fair in this case to put the entire burden of proof on the accuser in this case, though. I think it’s fairly evenly distributed between the two of them.

And while I do find his direct denials fairly credible, I think—based on multiple third-party accounts bets—his general explanations about his alcohol use, about the writings in his yearbook and (panning out a bit) his testimony about his career in the Bush WH to be less than convincing. So, on balance, I think he’s dug a hole for himself wrt credibility.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with putting the burden on Kavanaugh to clear is name is how can he do it? The alleged event happened 36 years ago. How can he mount a defense?
 
striker42 said:
One of the problems with putting the burden on Kavanaugh to clear is name is how can he do it? The alleged event happened 36 years ago. How can he mount a defense?
Click to expand...

He can deny the specific allegations, which he has done. He can also give broadly credible answers to questions about his conduct which, IMO, he has not done. I’m not necessarily saying that stuff is disqualifying, just that it leaves the door open for believing her story vs his.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top