Brett Kavanaugh Should be Impeached

[Ghostpanther]

90% of this thread is presenting one side of the story, you started nitpicking me because I brought up the side you don't like.

There is some evidence she is telling the truth, like passing a polygraph. But unlike cases like the Roy Moore accusations, there are no multiple accounts and corroborations or a date or time given. It is he said, she said.

You could have made it easy for both of us by not responding to me in the first place with a pointless, isolated demand for rigor.

There is no single category of evidence in the history of American law that has been subjected to stricter scrutiny by the courts, to greater resistance against admission and to such a widespread reluctance to accept scientific developments in the courtroom than has been the case with polygraph evidence. The cases in which it has been admitted are the exceptional ones, and the vast majority of reported opinions either deny its use with little analysis or employ techniques of exclusion that are not used against other forms of evidence.

The problem with the polygraph test is, the subject taking the test, may actually believe what they are saying is true, yet are wrong. Without some other evidence to present, this case is nothing more than a she said, he said one. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Democrats.

[Deletedaccount1]

The problem with the polygraph test is, the subject taking the test, may actually believe what they are saying is true, yet are wrong. Without some other evidence to present, this case is nothing more than a she said, he said one. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Democrats.

I think this is quite likely. Kavanaugh is already making the case that she is mistaking someone else for him.

[cubby]

There is no single category of evidence in the history of American law that has been subjected to stricter scrutiny by the courts, to greater resistance against admission and to such a widespread reluctance to accept scientific developments in the courtroom than has been the case with polygraph evidence. The cases in which it has been admitted are the exceptional ones, and the vast majority of reported opinions either deny its use with little analysis or employ techniques of exclusion that are not used against other forms of evidence.

The problem with the polygraph test is, the subject taking the test, may actually believe what they are saying is true, yet are wrong. Without some other evidence to present, this case is nothing more than a she said, he said one. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Democrats.

Yeah, polygraphs really aren't a great decision factor for determining if someone is telling the truth. Just as a shout out, this is a great summary of why, and well said.

[Sky High]

I'm sure that corporatist talk means something to you, but to most americans it's nonsense. And they'd rather have a jurist who sides with freedoms like free speech than those who think San Francisco should dictate social norms and behavior for the rest of the country. This is a horrendous abuse and weaponization of sexual assault. It didn't work on Anita Hill and it didn't work when you last tried it on Trump. You guys let Harvey Weinstein fund all your candidates for almost 3 decades. Just take your bullshit elsewhere. Any decent human being recognizes what Feinstein has done as the ultimate taboo.

Americans don't know their asshole from their elbow when it comes to politics or things they want. by and large Americans favor "left wing" policies but continue to vote against their self interests for things like "keeping the immigrants out". so forgive me if I don't CARE what they want. and I'm not a democrat, ask any of the "liberal" posters on here and they'll quickly throw me in with your lot for having the audacity to think the Dems are just marginally less shitty than the republicans. it's your bullshit that can fuck off somewhere else since NO ONE buys it. I mean really? I just have to name Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and that's all that needs to be said about how truly awful and terrible the GOP is. where's Merrick Garland? oh right, the "Biden rule" that no one bothers to follow unless turtle neck wants to for his own gain.

[cubby]

I think this is quite likely. Kavanaugh is already making the case that she is mistaking someone else for him.

It's entirely possible, and very understandable, considering it's 35 years ago. It's very interesting that Kavanaugh took the tactic of saying he wasn't even at the party. I'm not saying that he wasn't, it's very possible that he wasn't. But it's awfully hard to prove a negative, as he would know especially from his legal work.

It would have been easier for all to just go with the story of mistaken identity. Now, I will be the first to admit, that when you combine those two, it makes perfect sense. "She's confusing me with someone else, I wasn't even at the party." But he's being dumb about it. Which isn't ideal considering the job he's up for.

[Breccia]

Hey remember when this thread was about the GOP hiding hundreds of thousands of pages on Kavanaugh's work, and Kavanaugh pretending not to know/have an opinion on various topics? Yeah...good times...good times.

Anyhow, Kavanaugh and his accuser will both publicly testify before the Senate on Monday. I guess we'll see who's more credible then.

[Antius]

Amazing how these chicks suddenly come forward with these allegations when it comes to a politician possibly being elected. This shit is getting retarded...

20 bucks says she's a hardcore democrat.

[cubby]

Amazing how these chicks suddenly come forward with these allegations when it comes to a politician possibly being elected. This shit is getting retarded...

20 bucks says she's a hardcore democrat.

Exactly. Just like the last three male GOP SCOTUS nominations.

You need to wake the fuck up.

[Edge-]

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/...her-responded/

And apparently now a lawyer is coming out about having reached out to Feinstein/Grassley about multiple employees who wanted to provide information about their time working with/for Kavanaugh -

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

And she's the attorney who outed Kozinski, so it's not as if she's some random.

[Dacien]

The only places online I can find which are claiming these things to be true are Slate, Salon and Alternet articles.

I believe the Washington Post gave two- and three-Pinocchio's for the perjury claims about his 2004 and 2006 hearings.

[cubby]

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/...her-responded/

And apparently now a lawyer is coming out about having reached out to Feinstein/Grassley about multiple employees who wanted to provide information about their time working with/for Kavanaugh -

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

And she's the attorney who outed Kozinski, so it's not as if she's some random.

And here. we. go.

[Draco-Onis]

Agreed. There were also some accounts of Kavanaugh having a gambling problem? Maybe?

Yes Kvanaugh has many skeletons in his closet seems fitting Trump surrounds himself with scumbags.

[Dacien]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...leged-incident



They can confirm or deny his attendance at the party, something which Kavanaugh himself is apparently denying. If multiple witnesses confirm he was there, it will cause everything Kavanaugh has to say on this into question because he will have already lied about a major piece of information. If they both confirm he wasn't there, then that adds a lot of credibility to his denials.

It's surprising to me that Kavanaugh would deny being at the party when Ford hasn't even been able to recall when the party was exactly, the date or the time, or even where it was.

This tells me that Kavanaugh is either extremely confident that he didn't go to any parties in his teenage years, or he's gambling that nobody will remember him at the party. The latter strategy seems super sketch. I can't bring myself to believe Kavanaugh would go that far unless he was sure.

[cubby]

It's surprising to me that Kavanaugh would deny being at the party when Ford hasn't even been able to recall when the party was exactly, the date or the time, or even where it was.

This tells me that Kavanaugh is either extremely confident that he didn't go to any parties in his teenage years, or he's gambling that nobody will remember him at the party. The latter strategy seems super sketch. I can't bring myself to believe Kavanaugh would go that far unless he was sure.

That is a very good point.

[Fugus]

It's surprising to me that Kavanaugh would deny being at the party when Ford hasn't even been able to recall when the party was exactly, the date or the time, or even where it was.

This tells me that Kavanaugh is either extremely confident that he didn't go to any parties in his teenage years, or he's gambling that nobody will remember him at the party. The latter strategy seems super sketch. I can't bring myself to believe Kavanaugh would go that far unless he was sure.

Well, with Kavanaugh, he went to an all boys school and it was decades ago, so honestly, unless he was some school super star, it would be highly unlikely anyone would really remember him at all yet alone at something that specific unless he did something major to stand out.

The only people who would really remember him after this long is people who were friends of his back then which I doubt would come forward now or some of her friends if she vented to them afterward. And since cellphone photos and such weren't a thing back then, that gamble of his might be a sound one.

[cubby]

Well, with Kavanaugh, he went to an all boys school and it was decades ago, so honestly, unless he was some school super star, it would be highly unlikely anyone would really remember him at all yet alone at something that specific unless he did something major to stand out.

The only people who would really remember him after this long is people who were friends of his back then which I doubt would come forward now or some of her friends if she vented to them afterward. And since cellphone photos and such weren't a thing back then, that gamble of his might be a sound one.

But is @Dacien right? Has she yet to give the details of when/where? Aside from "high school party"? If that's the case, then isn't that almost proof Kavanaugh is lying? Denying he wasn't at a party she has yet to specify.

[Dacien]

And here. we. go.

Indeed. If Kavanaugh in some way was involved with the skeazy behavior by Kozinski, he not only lied about it, but it means there could be more victims.

[Bullettime]

But is @Dacien right? Has she yet to give the details of when/where? Aside from "high school party"? If that's the case, then isn't that almost proof Kavanaugh is lying? Denying he wasn't at a party she has yet to specify.

Exactly. It's a weird strategy unless he knows for sure that no one would be able to identify him or he's confident the one known (accused) witness won't flip on him.

[cubby]

Indeed. If Kavanaugh in some way was involved with the skeazy behavior by Kozinski, he not only lied about it, but it means there could be more victims.

And to me, when there is such a high profile case, multiple accusers make me feel much more confident about the whole thing. I hate to admit that, but I do.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It's a weird strategy unless he knows for sure that no one would be able to identify him or he's confident the one known (accused) witness won't flip on him.

I feel like I'm missing something. If Ford hasn't even said when/where, isn't Kavanaugh denying he was there almost proof he's lying? Because how can he deny being somewhere she hasn't even named yet.

Someone slap me straight here (don't hurt each other getting in line).

[Bullettime]

And to me, when there is such a high profile case, multiple accusers make me feel much more confident about the whole thing. I hate to admit that, but I do.

- - - Updated - - -



I feel like I'm missing something. If Ford hasn't even said when/where, isn't Kavanaugh denying he was there almost proof he's lying? Because how can he deny being somewhere she hasn't even named yet.

Someone slap me straight here (don't hurt each other getting in line).

No you're right. That's why the whole thing is an inconsistent shit show and Kavanaugh's strategy here is really mind boggling, even if he's innocent.