Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?

  • Total voters
    453
Not a fan of Kavanaugh for Supreme Court pick, but this is getting ridiculous.

The alleged sexual assault took place 36 years ago, way past any statutory limitation. That's assuming it even occurred in the first place. To initiate any proceeding against such a crime, you'd normally go to the police to file a report first. None was filed and the accusations were made by a Democrat senator during a confirmation hearing. The only other person present at the alleged incident stated it never happened. The accuser herself does not remember the date, time or how she got there/left. Now that she got a chance to talk at the hearing, she demands a FBI investigation which would obviously stall the confirmation process. You can't investigate something that has no details or corroborating evidence.

This shit is no different than claiming someone is a witch in Europe during the 15th century. There is simply no defending against that. Your reputation gets dragged through the dirt even if the allegation turns out to be false.
 
waiguoren said:
Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Two women who say they dated Kavanaugh issue statement defending him



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...riends-vouch-for-him-following-sexual-assault
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was posted last Friday, but got buried quickly by a deluge of shit posts over the weekend. I also included it in the Thread Index in the OP along with other news articles, so late-comers can catch up on the latest developments later without having to scuba dive through all the muck.

That story is pretty much being ignored by the mainstream media because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative, but I bet they (and especially the partisan drones in this thread) would be all over that subject like flies buzzing on a pile of dung had any of Kavanaugh's former girlfriends (or any women in his life for that matter) have anything bad to say about him at all, instead of coming out en masse to defend his character like they are now.
 
Last edited:
42210812_1843013522448129_2839812430287077376_n.jpg
 
Arkain2K said:
Yeah, it was posted last Friday, but got buried quickly by a deluge of shit posts over the weekend. I also included it in the Thread Index in the OP along with other news articles, so late-comers can catch up on the latest developments later without having to scuba dive through all the muck.

That story is pretty much being ignored by the mainstream media because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative, but I bet they (and especially the partisan drones in this thread) would be all over that subject like flies buzzing on a pile of dung had any of Kavanaugh's former girlfriends (or any women in his life for that matter) have anything bad to say about him at all, instead of coming out en masse to defend his character like they are now.
Click to expand...
Best TS on the forum. Thanks man.
 
vengeful said:
lol You said that about Cohen when he pleaded guilty, and argued that a guilty plea wasn't as meaningful as a conviction.
Click to expand...

No sir, not exactly.

I wrote that I believe Cohen to be guilty of six of the eight crimes to which he pleaded guilty. I did not accuse him of "lying" about his guilt. Rather, I believe he pleaded guilty to two campaign finance charges that he would not have pleaded guilty to in the absence of an implicit cooperation agreement with the SDNY team. I am unaware of any previous cases in which a jury found a payment to a mistress to be an "in-kind campaign contribution". Furthermore, I find it absurd that any unbiased observer would determine such a payment to be an "in-kind campaign contribution". The John Edwards case is suggestive.

In signing off on a plea deal, Judge Wood indicated that she found a "factual basis" for the charges. However, as noted by this classic review article on the matter, "the guilty plea process is characterized by less elaborate procedures which often ignore the issue of guilt or innocence" and " one method of preventing false pleas is judicial inquiry into the facts supporting the charge....some trial judges do make a factual inquiry before finally accepting guilty pleas, although those who do so appear to be in the minority."

A guilty plea can be as meaningful as a conviction by jury vote. In this case, on the narrow question of the two campaign finance charges, I don't accept that.
 
Orgasmo said:
Not a fan of Kavanaugh for Supreme Court pick
Click to expand...
Why not?
Orgasmo said:
The only other person present at the alleged incident stated it never happened.
Click to expand...

Two of them now. @Arkain2K just posted about it. The accuser says there were four people + her at the alleged party. Three of them have totally denied and we don't know who the fourth is yet.
 
waiguoren said:
Why not?


Two of them now. @Arkain2K just posted about it. The accuser says there were four people + her at the alleged party. Three of them have totally denied and we don't know who the fourth is yet.
Click to expand...
Denial just means they’re lying
Obviously
Even a video of it not happening would just be republicans pulling a Russia
 
Orgasmo said:
Not a fan of Kavanaugh for Supreme Court pick, but this is getting ridiculous.

The alleged sexual assault took place 36 years ago, way past any statutory limitation. That's assuming it even occurred in the first place. To initiate any proceeding against such a crime, you'd normally go to the police to file a report first. None was filed and the accusations were made by a Democrat senator during a confirmation hearing. The only other person present at the alleged incident stated it never happened. The accuser herself does not remember the date, time or how she got there/left. Now that she got a chance to talk at the hearing, she demands a FBI investigation which would obviously stall the confirmation process. You can't investigate something that has no details or corroborating evidence.

This shit is no different than claiming someone is a witch in Europe during the 15th century. There is simply no defending against that. Your reputation gets dragged through the dirt even if the allegation turns out to be false.
Click to expand...
Let's say he did it, which either way is nigh impossible to know at this point. We should live in a world where he can say "I feel bad that she saw things that way, we were all really young and I was playing, no intention of harm"...

That should be the end of it. You could totally see the above being true and you could also see a 15 year old girl being traumatized despite his intention, however inappropriate and clumsy.

That's of course an alternative reality...but that in my opinion probably did happen and if he admits to anything, he's fucked. If it did happen as above but really did traumatize her, not shocking she'd want him ruined.

Everyone in this thread for the most part sees this black and white. It's probably not.

The Democrat/Republican politics are separate from the above, that's a completely different story.
 
I just hope that Amy Barret is being keyed up just in case. She is a sure vote to overturn Roe and the Dems won't be able to attack her in the same way because she is a woman.
 
Orgasmo said:
This shit is no different than claiming someone is a witch in Europe during the 15th century. There is simply no defending against that. Your reputation gets dragged through the dirt even if the allegation turns out to be false.
Click to expand...
<mma4>
So you're saying some people turned out to be actual witches?
 
alanb said:
I just hope that Amy Barret is being keyed up just in case. She is a sure vote to overturn Roe and the Dems won't be able to attack her in the same way because she is a woman.
Click to expand...
I predict Judge Barret will be President Trump's next pick for several reasons.

The next Supreme Court vacancy is most likely going to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. Right now, our media is almost pathologically obsessed with what they see as "proper" Optics. Nominating Barret eliminates some of the smear tactics that the Democrats will surely try to employ. I can only imagine what horrible things Judge Barrett is going to be labeled. Fortunately for us, the Democrats and the media loyal to them has cried wolf way too many times.

Even if the Democrats were to take control of the Senate (they won't until 2022, but just speaking hypothetically), President Trump shouldn't nominate a moderate. If Ginsburg seat is vacated for any reason, and the Democrats refuse to hold a vote on any of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees, all the Democrats have done is give conservatives a 5-3 majority on the Supreme Court for a few years.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
The next Supreme Court vacancy is most likely going to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat.
Click to expand...

I saw her in that clip when she made those comments about Kavanaugh's hearings. Jesus, she is hanging on by a thread. Looks like death. A prime example for term limits. She could barely speak, and I swear she nodded off during a question. This is a person that is making decisions in the SC? There has to be a cut off date set for those guys. I felt sorry for her. Even if she doesn't want to, somebody needs to mercifully show her to a retirement home. It's time to take the car keys away from Grandma.
 
Meanwhile, the mainstream media outlets are begging more fake accusers to come forward on Facebook. It's nauseating.
 
HereticBD said:
I saw her in that clip when she made those comments about Kavanaugh's hearings. Jesus, she is hanging on by a thread. Looks like death. A prime example for term limits. She could barely speak, and I swear she nodded off during a question. This is a person that is making decisions in the SC? There has to be a cut off date set for those guys. I felt sorry for her. Even if she doesn't want to, somebody needs to mercifully show her to a retirement home. It's time to take the car keys away from Grandma.
Click to expand...

HereticBD said:
I saw her in that clip when she made those comments about Kavanaugh's hearings. Jesus, she is hanging on by a thread. Looks like death. A prime example for term limits. She could barely speak, and I swear she nodded off during a question. This is a person that is making decisions in the SC? There has to be a cut off date set for those guys. I felt sorry for her. Even if she doesn't want to, somebody needs to mercifully show her to a retirement home. It's time to take the car keys away from Grandma.
Click to expand...
There are judges in their 90s on the federal appeals courts.
 
HereticBD said:
<KingstonFrown>
Click to expand...

That said the Carter appointee my friend was in front of is still pretty sharp

And Judge Wallace on the Ninth is 92 and he is frankly still smarter than a lot of these new Obama judges who are in their 50s
 
alanb said:
That said the Carter appointee my friend was in front of is still pretty sharp

And Judge Wallace on the Ninth is 92 and he is frankly still smarter than a lot of these new Obama judges who are in their 50s
Click to expand...

Yeah, in all honesty, age is just a number. Some extremely old folks still have their shit together. RBG though? I don't know. I don't think she has dementia or anything, but I'd be checking her pulse every night, let's just say that. She does not look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,082
Messages
55,466,517
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top