They’re not relying on a criminal standard here. This wouldn’t even meet a preponderance standard. The Democratic argument is effectively that his nomination should be defeated on the basis of a “scintilla of evidence” standard.
So you speed weeks with one side of people trying their best to ruin you, then allegations that you know are false are brought against you. And that same group of people ignore everything already said, and drag you through the mud again. And you are not allowed to be mad? Interesting...
Don't even try to pretend that this is a trial, Ben. This is political theater. If you or I took a case to trial, there would be an investigation, there would be discovery, there would be witnesses. You don't get to impose burdens of proof when you refuse to actually allow fact finding. Let's call a spade a spade. And frankly, while I believe Dr. Ford, there was something much more serious that happened yesterday. You had a sitting federal judge pull an Alex Jones conspiracy theory out of his rear end while under oath. He exposed himself as a partisan operative. The façade is gone. I don't care what your feelings are towards the Clintons. A sitting federal judge up for SCOTUS claimed that the allegations against him were a revenge conspiracy from the Clintons. He threatened political retaliation for what happened to him. I don't care how angry you are at the perceived unfair treatment. Garbage like that should never come out of the mouth of a person up for SCOTUS.
You already tried that one. @OaktownGator made it very clear to you why and how you're being dishonest.
If the witnesses say they do not remember ever attending a party that Dr. Ford describes, they are saying it didn't happen AT that party because they never attended it. They are denying it. Same with her friend's account. She denied ever being at a party that Dr. Ford describes and denied that she had ever been at a party with or ever met Kavanaugh. These are just your opinions and are not a facts. I've never heard of a group of teenage boys taking words and giving them different meanings, especially in the '80's. That what those words mean to You. What they meant to a group of kids in DC in the 1980's is not a fact, it's an opinion. Personally, I've never head that boof refers to anal sex and I was in a fraternity at UF and in the Marine Corps on active duty for over 8 years. Those are opinions as well. If you are aware of an recorded conversation or physical evidence that back up these claims, that would change my opinion.
I suppose she told the fabricated story about the sexual assault in therapy so she could retell the story five or six years later in a Senate hearing on confirmation of the person who attacked her. By the way attorneys always prepare their witnesses, including victims, whether they will be testifying a civil or criminal trial or before a congressional committee. So she was prepared but she also was able to provide detailed responses extemporaneously to a number of questions.
When your former classmates are calling up CNN to call you out for lying under oath, that should speak volumes. They're going to put that man on SCOTUS. Disgusting.
That’s not really a direct analogy. It’s closer to: Q. Did you have bacon with breakfast on Monday? A. I have no recollection of having eaten breakfast on Monday. It’s still not an exact match in terms of language, but characterizing that as you having denied eating breakfast isn’t nearly so inaccurate as you’re trying to make it out to be.
All of this is demonstrably false. Go read my breakfast hypothetical. What @OaktownGator said is a fact.
This. I was agog at hearing this from the man's own mouth. He said it. It reveals his mindset, philosophy, and beliefs. Very far from acceptable judicial temperament. This utterance would better fit the broadcast airwaves of talk radio. Still think the R's will plow right through and he will be confirmed
Do drunk rapists typically manage to graduate from Yale law school, go on to be confirmed to the dc circuit and get nomiated to the scotus? Seems like a stretch to me.
I don’t know lawyer, seems to me that everything one party does is claimed to be in response to the other. What do you think the conservative posters on this board will say when a democratic nominee faces similar circumstances? “Oh, It was ok for Kavanaugh but no [nominee]!?!” Two things are true about that response: it was generated by their feelings stoked by the way Kavanaugh was treated, and they are ignoring their own behavior during the Kavanaugh. Ignoring the latter, it shows that the ill will reverberates - just as you are advocating for the democratic response. I’m registered independent as well. I did vote for Hillary and have never voted republican. However, today doesn’t take me further from voting republican and closer to voting democratic. What might do that is if the democrats didn’t try to go scorched Earth and instead attempted to follow your advice from your first paragraph. However, that’s unlikely, and instead I’ll probably just be in the same boat in 2020 wondering what do I do if I hate Trump but don’t particularly like the democratic candidate.
Flake is a yes, as is Manchin. Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed at this point. I bet Chuck Schumer wishes he still had a judicial filibuster lying around somewhere. He has Harry Reid to thank for that.
and of course, that's not what the position of SCJ is about. What happen to someone who would look objectively at all the evidence in any case before the SC. So this is OK with Republicans. Integrity be damned-- even when discussing the Supreme Court Justices. And even when the Dems KNEW this, the guy sailed right through. That doesn't tell you something?
My god, Ben. Aren't you the dude who criticized me for not looking precisely enough at the language in the affidavit? And you're going to actually pull this crap. You and I both know that "I don't remember" is not a denial. Claiming it as such is a lie. Now, maybe certain posters on this forum can make that mistake without intentionally being dishonest, but Brett Kavanaugh certainly is not making that mistake. Even your bacon hypothetical makes it clear that it is wrong. I could have eaten bacon on Monday even if I don't remember doing so.
Keep deflecting. Not everyone her speaks lawyer BS. She was asked if she remembers a party in which she was one only 4 or 6 other people there. The same part that her supposed best friend ran out of the house, I believe Ford said she ran out crying but I dont remember, without saying anything. And you think that wouldn't register? You think she wouldn't question that? Wouldn't remember that? Ford said that she was one of the people at the party that could confirm BK was at this party with her and Judge. She cant do that. But you keep think that I'm the one who lies.
Would you have been OK with it, if Kavanaugh said "they have no memory of it" rather than "denied it"?
A more appropriate analogy would be: Q. Did you have bacon with your breakfast in 35 years ago? A. I have no recollection of having eaten bacon with my breakfast 35 years ago since I didn't eat breakfast everyday 35 years ago.
I think McConnell removed the filibuster for SCOTUS votes, not Reid. But yeah, Reid went there first with the lower courts.
