Yes, that testimony should definitely outweigh his 20 years of impeccable judicial record and top judicial rating by the ABA God forbid he is pissed off about being falsely accused and the effect it has on he and his family. The nerve of him
The thing is, your credibility is next to zero when you make up a story about your evolution of thought. Here are some quotes from Friday about her. Yeah, you were very clearly pointing out how credible she was:
TRANSLATION: Now that it's been basically proven that Ford's story is rife with holes and inconsistencies, we need to move the goal posts in our game of Gotcha! to something unrelated. (ala Kavanaugh's supposed "bad behavior" at the hearing)
Wonder why Kavanaugh was not a rapist in what year 2003 when President Bush appointed him to a lifetime bench seat ? Why did she not come forward then ? Maybe the money for lying was not enough from the democrats
They can, and they havent bc the objective is to get kav on SCOTUS, not '...make him whole again." If he loses out on SCOTUS, then they might talk of such....but certainly not b4 (...and stii unlikely, per cost v benys). This issue is not about money for either.
Not a lawyer, but he would have to prove that she was falsely accusing him. Not an easy thing to prove unless she actually comes out and admits that she made it all up.
I think there is a malice standard as well, so they would have to find some magic information that she was out to get Kavanaugh. I think the likelihood that there is a lawsuit is remote whether he gets confirmed or not.
Translation... either you're reading comprehension truly sucks, or you're deflecting. My post means exactly what it says. A bad nominee is a bad nominee. A person who repeatedly lies under oath, behaves in manner that he himself would never tolerate in a court room, and goes off on a wild paranoid partisan rant is bad nominee. Especially for the highest court in the land.
I hammered this point repeatedly up thread--it is the most glaring flaw. Couldnt narrow it down to within a fraeken part of a decade??? Waffled bt early n mid 80s???? That is fatal to begin with... ....and INTENTIONALLY vague to round out, and bury it. Hard as hell to believe this happened, left an emotional scar, and she needed to triangulate to come up with a time frame...aftet having whiffed so badly at narrowing it to a few years, without triangulating agsinst extrinsic time markers.
It really isn't. We are aware that without interviewing witnesses and establishing some timelines a prosecution would not be possible. There is a reason that very few rapists end up in jail (acknowledging that this was just an attempt not an outright rape). If you only interview those two and take the statements of witnesses at face value without asking any follow-up questions, then, no, there would not be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is the thing though: he probably shouldn't have the same level of proof required for a criminal charge in order to say that maybe he shouldn't sit on the court. I have been consistent that we dont know what happened, so somebody saying that we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt is actually quite consistent with my position. BTW, feel free to look back through my posts for me saying that he definitely did it. You wont find posts that are clearly contradictory to my narrative as I did for your narrative.
Being pissed about the accusations is no excuse for repeatedly lying under oath and going off on a delusional paranoid rant. Nor is it an excuse to behave more poorly under oath than he would ever allow another person to behave in his court.
Standards? How about being able to at least prove that the party/get together happened? Because right now, there hasn't been one sworn statement from anyone that was supposedly there that the event where this alleged assault even happened How about first meet that standard. Cause if the get together never happened then it's impossible for the assault to have happened
I thought his testimony was very moving and on point. I do not feel he lied under Oath and I would be honored to have him on our Supreme Court. I don't blame him for being a little triggered after having false accusations launched at him and being treated unfairly by the Democratic leadership. As a very well-acclaimed Federal judge, he deserved better.
So you think that a whole list of slang terms for sex were not meant as their primary meaning but rather some meaning that nobody has ever heard of before and that a guy who multiple times has talked about not remembering something that happened while he drank has never passed out or blacked out, despite claiming that he had?
That's quite a bit different than the supreme court. Do you know the names of any life time bench seat appointees? I don't. Yet I know every supreme court justice.
He never lied under Oath as you claim and his assessment of today's left was on point. No wonder he is held in such high esteem in the legal world.
