[Nevyn]

Tiste Simeon, on 27 September 2018 - 08:58 PM, said:

Sorry, the calendar thing... Is this a defence that he couldn't have raped anyone at a party because it wasn't in his calendar?

And he's meant to be an intelligent judge??

The calendar thing is meant to be an argument that the alleged party did not even happen

[Tiste Simeon]

Aha that makes a bit more sense...

I'm just reading through some of the stuff that's been going on - that Lindsey Graham chap seems nice... 🙄

[Nevyn]

Tiste Simeon, on 27 September 2018 - 09:04 PM, said:

Aha that makes a bit more sense...

I'm just reading through some of the stuff that's been going on - that Lindsey Graham chap seems nice... 🙄

I get Graham's point.

The democrats in part are playing a time game with the midterms in how they approach this.

But when he goes on a rant about how it is unprecedented, it is only unprecedented because normally there was a filibuster to backstop such fights, to the point that a more centrist nominee would be picked, or a vote could be pushed back to the new senate anyway,

Besides, republicans are more likely than not to retain the senate anyhow. If he thinks the only issue is timing, an FBI investigation would bear it out. Voting without knowing is not an appropriate answer to the tactics he is alleging.

[worry]

Which is to say, when suggesting Dems are playing a time game, it's in the broader context of Republicans having control of the entire process and attempting to steamroll their way through it. Dems aren't playing politics, as little as they are managing, against a blank canvass.

[worry]

I'm not watching live anymore, so forgive me if this is a little behind. This strikes me as pretty obviously the case (though I'm not undecided/neutral in terms of whether Kav did it as Nate has to be here):



And of course, this guy has been a pretty consistent liar from the get-go, even from the day he was announced (that whole "Trump has done the most vetting of anyone ever" thing). Also pretty clear why Mark Judge decided to hide out several states away to avoid scrutiny. He can't credibly corroborate these obvious lies. Not that he was ever gonna be compelled to testify. This whole thing is very plainly an attempt to get cover for like the Murkowskis of the world to see if they can vote Yes without it hurting them.

[worry]

Also:

[amphibian]

Kavanaugh can't really say he's an alcoholic etc because that might provide basis to challenge every one of his decisions as a judge. "How do we know you were of sound mind when you decided these cases when you were blacked out drunk this many times as a professional?"

That's one reason why he's lying about that specific topic.

There's also a day on the July 1982 calendar where he wrote that he was going to hang with PJ and Judge.

I think he 100% did assault the five women that are publicly accusing him now. He probably harassed many more. I believe he should lose his job, but I don't think that'll happen.

[Nevyn]

amphibian, on 27 September 2018 - 11:47 PM, said:

I think he 100% did assault the five women that are publicly accusing him now. He probably harassed many more. I believe he should lose his job, but I don't think that'll happen.

While I think you absolutely cannot (in a sane world) confirm him (absent an investigation providing further corroboration or exoneration), I also think the above is an absolutely ludicrous statement. We are not remotely in the realm of 100% here, and not all of the accusers are even directly accusing him of assault. One is alleging his presence and saying she doesn't know who did what, and another is alleging a harassment but not assault.

[worry]

Nah, he did it. 100%, on at least Blasy and Ramirez, and there's no reason to doubt Swetnik. You don't even have to get to the last two.


Anyway, barring a miracle that switched these ghouls' brains with better people, he is going to be confirmed. The Republican Party is pro-rape as policy, and blue dog Dems couldn't care less.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

If he is confirmed, but a Democrat wins the 2020 presidential election, could he be prosecuted for perjury and lying to congress? Could a convicted felon still serve on the Supreme Court from prison, if Democrats don't win enough legislative seats to impeach him? 'The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire.'

https://en.wikipedia...Lifetime_tenure

Kavanaugh might want to extend that 'a sitting president can't be indicted' bit to Supreme Court judges too, but assuming he would have to recuse himself... well, it depends on how many other Trumpian judges get confirmed. If the conservative justices go all in for him and there's a tie, I guess the next highest court ruling stands? Here's hoping another non-conservative Supreme Court justice doesn't die (mysteriously or otherwise)....

(Technically, if they were willing to forego any vestiges of legal legitimacy beyond abuse of power, the conservative justices could rule that he doesn't have to recuse himself. But some of them genuinely seem to care about the prestige and perceived legitimacy of the court.)

[Edit: The statute of limitations on perjury at the federal level appears to be 5 years. So if a Republican wins in 2020 he might become immune to criminal prosecution... for perjury. But since there's no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland he could still be indicted for sexual assault or aiding sexual assault, particularly if there are enough witnesses to corroborate the gang rapes. He could also be disbarred in the meantime, since Trump doesn't control the American bar association.]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 28 September 2018 - 02:03 AM

[Primateus]

After watching a few videos here and there, fully knowing they're the worst parts, I've reached a conclusion.

If he's confirmed, he's TOTALLY going to be a fair and impartial judge...

[Khellendros]

Watched some 'highlights'. I'm hardly the first person to say this but it does bear repeating: If Kavanaugh had been a woman, the headlines and descriptions of 'hysterical' and 'emotional beyond reason' are very easy to imagine.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 28 September 2018 - 11:41 AM

[QuickTidal]

Innocent men don't go on unhinged screeds in a public (global) setting to try to defend their actions...they ESPECIALLY don't do it when we are meant to think he'll be a fair and impartial judge.

For the fact that he says this was a "calculated smear attack" by "the left" should AUTOMATICALLY disqualify him from the SCOTUS bench where there is not meant to be any partisans.

All of this is so beyond the pale.

And there best thing I've seen thrown in the GOP defenders faces who say "why wait 35 years to come forward, how are we supposed to believe you"?

For the same reason a bunch of men who came out 30+ years after being abused by the Catholic Priests are to be believed (and weren't questioned by you all), you fucking GHOULS.

And for every person who says that individually "why not come out 35 years ago, how are we supposed to believe you?"....the answer forever and always needs to be to point at that person and say "What you JUST said is why, you numpty." They express disbelief...and then in the same breath wonder why women don't report.

Sweet fucking hell this has been hard to watch.

[Aptorian]

You do realize that you guys are pushing your own narrative here right?

If he's affected by the "witch hunt" he's too emotional and unfit for the position. If he's cold and uninvested then he's clearly a dangerous psychopath, etc.

The guy is clearly lying but is he lying because he's guilty or because some aspects would make him seem guilty? Like the drinking, the sex, etc.

I'm not arguing that the guy is fit for the position but the guy is a human being, even a supreme court nominee can crack under this kind of pressure and start saying dumb shit.

(I still think he's super guilty by the way)

[QuickTidal]

"Don't look away from me"

Fuck Jeff Flake (He voted to confirm)

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 September 2018 - 01:52 PM

[Primateus]

Of course he will. They know Kavanaugh is guilty and they don't care!

And why would they? They have amply demonstrated time and again that these things do not matter to them. That they have no sense of decency or morality left.

Why would they care? There's a very real chance that they will cement their majority in both houses come November.

They don't care, and there's a very real possibility that they don't even have to pretend to care.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 28 September 2018 - 02:33 PM

[QuickTidal]

Also, I just learned this fun factoid: There is a case on the docket for the SCOTUS coming up that will effectively decide whether individual States can prosecute people who have been federally pardoned by the President.

If Kavanaugh is a GOP stooge (and he totally is)...this could mean freedom for people like Manafort and Cohen if the President pardons them at the federal level....the ruling could take away the States ability to prosecute them.

Which is...I mean people were not kidding when they talked about US-as-Banana Republic and dictatorship.

I am frightened the next thing to go is Terms for President..and then holding fair elections.

Like how is this not where this is all seemingly headed?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Harry Claiborne was impeached and removed in 1986, two years after receiving a two-year prison sentence for falsifying income tax returns. [...]Walter Nixon was removed in 1989, three years after receiving a five-year prison sentence for perjury.'

https://www.vox.com/...brett-kavanaugh

'A person convicted of perjury under federal law may face up to five years in prison and fines. '

https://www.criminal...ral/perjury.htm

Being a convicted felon would not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court justice:

'There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court'

https://www.history....s-supreme-court

Unfortunately, Trump can preemptively pardon him:

https://www.forbes.c...e/#3e31c11e6c3b

There is an exception in the presidential pardon rule for impeachment, though:

'The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.'

https://www.heritage...don-and-commute

But that would require a 2/3rds majority of the senate.

On the bright side, congress can increase the number of Supreme Court justices, and all they need is a simple majority (without presidential veto). So if Democrats regain control, Kavanaugh's lack of legitimacy will give them stronger grounds for adding justices.

https://www.vox.com/...s-supreme-court

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 28 September 2018 - 02:59 PM

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 28 September 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

"Don't look away from me"

Fuck Jeff Flake (He voted to confirm)

Despite my previous comment, I'm actually willing to entertain the possibility that it's just plain ole' cowardice on Flake's behalf.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 28 September 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 September 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

"Don't look away from me"

Fuck Jeff Flake (He voted to confirm)

Despite my previous comment, I'm actually willing to entertain the possibility that it's just plain ole' cowardice on Flake's behalf.

But I mean, he's on his way out...he literally has no skin in the game. A run for president would fail hard after all this....so yeah, you're probably right. Plain old cowardice.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 September 2018 - 03:56 PM