Brett Kavanaugh - Appoint to Supreme Court, yes or no?

[Athos_131]

Fight over Kavanaugh intensifies amid confusion over limits of FBI sexual assault investigation

Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told The Washington Post on Sunday that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Ludington says he was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.

“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However ... if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The Mystery of Brett Kavanaugh’s Baseball-Ticket Debt

I mean, I had a coworker who's daughter spent $10,000 on two tickets to Game 3 of the 2016 World Series, but she had to dip into her savings for it.

#Resist

[IrishGirl]

Do you believe him?

I would like the answer to this question as well.

#Resist

It doesn't matter.  i don't care if he did it or not.  I DO, however, care that people are calling to find him guilty for accusation alone.

That is what I care about.  Who he is and if he makes a good SCOTUS, in this case, means fuck all to me compared to the fact that you people are upset over due process.

[psiberzerker]

i don't care if he did it or not.  I DO, however, care that people are calling to find him guilty for accusation alone.

You don't care if he lies about sexually assaulted women?  You, don't care.  Nobody's calling to "Find him guilty," we're calling for him being denied confirmation, for lying under oath, and a pervasive pattern of disregard for Federal Law.  We're calling for the testimony to continue, and for the allegations to be answered instead of avoided.

That is what I care about.  Who he is and if he makes a good SCOTUS, in this case, means fuck all to me compared to the fact that you people are upset over due process.

What do you mean You People?  Americans, Women, Victims of Sexual Abuse, or just "Liberals?"

Again, if he cares so little for federal law, the truth, and other people's rights, you're going to have to show anything to suggest that he might even be a Decent SCotUS judge.  

[Athos_131]

This will now be the 4th time that poster has refused to answer a direct question.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Why should anyone believe him?  If it's his word, against their's, then why should the Senate Judiciary Committe believe him?  He got his due process, he got multiple opportunities to answer the allegations, and he refused to.  Instead, he pretended not to know what a "Mean drunk" means.

Give us 1 good reason to believe him, when he refuses to even tell his side of the story, nor answer any of the pertinent questions.

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The Confusion Surrounding the F.B.I.’s Renewed Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Sorry, hit the wrong button.

[MissBarbara]

Do you believe him?

I would like the answer to this question as well.

#Resist

It doesn't matter.  i don't care if he did it or not.  I DO, however, care that people are calling to find him guilty for accusation alone.

That is what I care about.  Who he is and if he makes a good SCOTUS, in this case, means fuck all to me compared to the fact that you people are upset over due process.

Up to a point, I agree with you: Whether or not I believe him is irrelevant, since I am not a U.S. Senator who will vote on his nomination.

But I do care if he did it or not. I'm aware that, very likely, I will not have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision, one way or the other. But I care.

More to the point, I find it troubling, and exhausting, to find a nation-wide ignorance of how the Supreme Court nomination process -- a process that has been in place for over two centuries -- actually works.

I also find it troubling, and exhausting, that most observers don't understand the difference between a criminal trial and a Senate hearing. "Due process" isn't a factor in a Senate hearing, or in an individual expressing an opinion, and the "court of public opinion" isn't a thing.

Who Kavanuagh is and whether or not he will prove an effective and sober Supreme Court judge is vital -- to me, and to the nation as a whole (and, of course, to the members of the Senate). You're free to believe him guilty or innocent, and you're also free to believe it "means fuck all."

The irony, of course, is that when the Senate vote is finally taken later this week, Kavanaugh will be approved by only a vote or two different from strict party lines.

[psiberzerker]

The irony, of course, is that when the Senate vote is finally taken later this week, Kavanaugh will be approved by only a vote or two different from strict party lines.

We'll have to wait, and see on that, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Keep in mind, that vote or 2 is the difference in Majority on the committee.  It does show the difference between apparent "Due Process" (He was given a chance to defend himself, and failed to.) and it making any difference one way or another.

What i find troubling is an alleged rape victim comes right out and says she doesn't care if he tried to rape someone, and got away with it.  What's important is that she's not believed her when she does risk the rest of her life to report it.

[Jed_]

Do you believe him?

I would like the answer to this question as well.

#Resist

It doesn't matter.  i don't care if he did it or not.  I DO, however, care that people are calling to find him guilty for accusation alone.

That is what I care about.  Who he is and if he makes a good SCOTUS, in this case, means fuck all to me compared to the fact that you people are upset over due process.

Up to a point, I agree with you: Whether or not I believe him is irrelevant, since I am not a U.S. Senator who will vote on his nomination.

But I do care if he did it or not. I'm aware that, very likely, I will not have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision, one way or the other. But I care.

More to the point, I find it troubling, and exhausting, to find a nation-wide ignorance of how the Supreme Court nomination process -- a process that has been in place for over two centuries -- actually works.

I also find it troubling, and exhausting, that most observers don't understand the difference between a criminal trial and a Senate hearing. "Due process" isn't a factor in a Senate hearing, or in an individual expressing an opinion, and the "court of public opinion" isn't a thing.

Who Kavanuagh is and whether or not he will prove an effective and sober Supreme Court judge is vital -- to me, and to the nation as a whole (and, of course, to the members of the Senate). You're free to believe him guilty or innocent, and you're also free to believe it "means fuck all."

The irony, of course, is that when the Senate vote is finally taken later this week, Kavanaugh will be approved by only a vote or two different from strict party lines.

My gut feeling is either he is lying and did it or blacked out and chooses to believe it didn’t happen because HE can’t remember it.  However my gut feeling doesn’t mean shit.

I’m still extremely troubled by what seems like verifiable lies on his part even if we never corroborate Ford’s version of events, so let’s see what the FBI finds out in their scaled down version of a form of ‘due process’.  I’m somewhat encouraged that Comey says the FBI can do such a check even in the limited time allowed.

Sadly if the FBI finds something, the Republicans will claim deep state Democrats in the FBI, the same ones trying to frame Trump, have lied and torpedoed Kavanaugh for partisan reasons.  If the FBI can’t corroborate Ford and others that said Kavanagh lied, the the Republicans will be happy and exonerate him fully (and many will brand her as a liar).

[psiberzerker]

Sadly if the FBI finds something, the Republicans will claim deep state Democrats in the FBI, the same ones trying to frame Trump, have lied and torpedoed Kavanaugh for partisan reasons.  If the FBI can’t corroborate Ford and others that said Kavanagh lied, the the Republicans will be happy and exonerate him fully (and many will brand her as a liar).

Yet again, this would be an example of those in power blaming those they have power over, in this case Republicans blaming Democrats for infiltrating their own (EXTREMELY Conservative) Investigation service on their watch.  If the dems are the enemy, then the GoP is doing a shitty job of protecting US from them, considering the "Fact" that they've infiltrated the FBI with sleepers deep enough to influence the confirmation process, on their watch.

Or, just possibly, the publicly open sexual abuser in chief nominated a closeted sexual abuser, and was unable to cover it up with such thinly veiled lies indefinitely.  They can go ahead, and invalidate the FBI as a trusted investigator.  What happened to the independent investigation of Obama's birth records again?

[Jed_]

This will now be the 4th time that poster has refused to answer a direct question.

#Resist

I’ve stated I don’t believe him, but I freely admit my view is at least partially based on partisanship.  So I hardly feel I have the moral high ground over someone who insists they can’t and won’t give a similar ‘opinion’ until they feel due process has been at least attempted.  That I at least sometimes consider my own partisanship as a factor in my beliefs and try to critically evaluate my beliefs against the facts means I likely do have the moral high ground over someone incapable of viewing things except through their own partisan kaleidoscope.

[psiberzerker]

At this point how has due process not been "Attempted?"  He had every opportunity to answer the questions raised, and even refused to answer whether or not he wanted an FBI investigation.  3 times.  That's a yes, or no question.

Due process was offered, he refused it.  He can't exactly argue that he doesn't understand how Due Process applies in this case, the way that he didn't understand what "A mean drunk" means.  This is a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court.  So, how do you feel, at this point, he's been denied his due process?

[Jed_]

What constitutes due process here is rather nebulous, because the hyper partisan atmosphere has us in uncharted territory in comparison to past nominations (and in comparison to a past accusation of sexual misconduct in a SCOTUS nomination).  If you’ll note, my post refers specifically to someone other than my self and their beliefs on the lack of due process.  I sure as shit don’t know what is sufficient due process here at this point, but maybe I’ll know it when I see it.

[psiberzerker]

I sure as shit don’t know what is sufficient due process here at this point, but maybe I’ll know it when I see it.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm satisfied that Due Process is being attempted, and refused by the nominee.  If he wants it, all he has to do is answer the questions to clear his name.

There's 3 more allegations to go.  That we know about.  

[Athos_131]

This will now be the 4th time that poster has refused to answer a direct question.

#Resist

I’ve stated I don’t believe him, but I freely admit my view is at least partially based on partisanship.  So I hardly feel I have the moral high ground over someone who insists they can’t and won’t give a similar ‘opinion’ until they feel due process has been at least attempted.  That I at least sometimes consider my own partisanship as a factor in my beliefs and try to critically evaluate my beliefs against the facts means I likely do have the moral high ground over someone incapable of viewing things except through their own partisan kaleidoscope.

You are not the poster I am referring to.

#Resist

[Jed_]

This will now be the 4th time that poster has refused to answer a direct question.

#Resist

I’ve stated I don’t believe him, but I freely admit my view is at least partially based on partisanship.  So I hardly feel I have the moral high ground over someone who insists they can’t and won’t give a similar ‘opinion’ until they feel due process has been at least attempted.  That I at least sometimes consider my own partisanship as a factor in my beliefs and try to critically evaluate my beliefs against the facts means I likely do have the moral high ground over someone incapable of viewing things except through their own partisan kaleidoscope.

You are not the poster I am referring to.

#Resist

No shit Sherlock, but I am referring to her in the second sentence of that post.  In case me saying ‘her’ still doesn’t overcome your obtuseness, that second sentence refers to IrishGirl and her POV regarding due process, and my post was contrasting the views of all 3 of us.

[Athos_131]

Against Bravery

#Resist