Why I believe Justice Kavanaugh

[joko104]

My "I don't know" has evolved to I believe Justice Kavanaugh - and here is why.

Kavanaugh has openly exposed himself to a perjury charge and to being disproven. There were plenty of cheap cameras back then, plenty of security cameras in the high dollar part of town both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were in, and according to her 6 people at the party, any one of which could contradict him. He has exposed himself to being proven lying. He also have given a sworn written denial. In addition, Kavanaugh has agreed to any questioning anywhere, anytime, no conditions.

Not Dr. Ford. To this date, unlike Justice Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford has refused to give any sworn written statement and her brief statements all are to protect her from any possible perjury charge. She will not say where it happened. Will not say when it happened. Will not say how she got there. Will not say how she got home. She refused to allow even Democratic Congressional investigators interview her. Made ludicrous demands as an accuser NO other accuser has ever been allowed (Kavanaugh to provide a defense before even hearing the accusation). She's ducking, dodging and playing politics.

She also has lied, claiming she "received medical treatment for the assault" as an enhancement, when her as a psychologist knows 100% that psychological counseling is not medical treatment - so we know she will enhance the truth with misleading statements because she already has. In addition, she has numerous personal economic interests, as well as personal and professional benefits by the accusation and also for not wanting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, as this could hurt her financial interests in the company that make RU486 (the morning-after-pill) that she was a Director of and wrote EIGHT articles trying to push it also as an anti-depressant drug hoping to sell it to tens of millions of people every month.

I do NOT buy her "I'm so afraid!" act. She was not raped nor was there any sexual assault even alleged by her details. She is a PhD psychologist, openly an extreme partisan Democrat who already was openly and in writing attacking President Trump, is a professor and her and her husband are millionaires - far richer than Kavanaugh - with her surrounded by lawyers who specialize in shaking down men on accusations.

I don't believe her. Not any more. If she had a story to tell she would need weeks and weeks of a group of lawyers training her on what she should say and how she should say it. She wouldn't be refusing to tell ANY details that could expose her to a perjury charge if she is lying - so extreme she refuses to even make a sworn accusation.

She is NOT like ANY other victim of an assault, nor without the politics would any lawyer take her case nor would any prosecutor or the police.

 

[joko104]

Just in... the other girl Dr. Ford claims was at this tiny drinking party of 6 teenagers has denied ever meeting or knowing Kavanaugh or ever being at such a party. That woman was married to hyper Democrat Bob Beckel.

So EVERYONE is lying against Dr. Ford according to her. Everyone she claims was there and say they weren't are all lying. Even her own psychologist also is a liar according to Dr. Ford. Some vast conspiracy against her by EVERYONE.

I suppose, as her husband now keeps remembering more and more stuff - after talking to her lawyers and himself a Ph -, will suddenly remember he was also at the party and can testify for her - but also claiming seeing this horrific, unthinkable crime against the woman now his wife that he also was too traumatized to remember when, where or how he got there and left.

Kananaugh's response was immediate and hasn't changed. Dr. Ford's story - and her husband's story - just keeps getting better every day, which also indicates a liar.

Why do you think EVERYONE is lying against Dr. Ford, even her former classmates and teenage drinking pals? Even her own psychologist?

 

[Captain Adverse]

My "I don't know" has evolved to I believe Justice Kavanaugh - and here is why.

Kavanaugh has openly exposed himself to a perjury charge and to being disproven. There were plenty of cheap cameras back then, plenty of security cameras in the high dollar part of town both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were in, and according to her 6 people at the party, any one of which could contradict him. He has exposed himself to being proven lying. He also have given a sworn written denial. In addition, Kavanaugh has agreed to any questioning anywhere, anytime, no conditions.

Not Dr. Ford. To this date, unlike Justice Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford has refused to give any sworn written statement and her brief statements all are to protect her from any possible perjury charge. She will not say where it happened. Will not say when it happened. Will not say how she got there. Will not say how she got home. She refused to allow even Democratic Congressional investigators interview her. Made ludicrous demands as an accuser NO other accuser has ever been allowed (Kavanaugh to provide a defense before even hearing the accusation). She's ducking, dodging and playing politics.

She also has lied, claiming she "received medical treatment for the assault" as an enhancement, when her as a psychologist knows 100% that psychological counseling is not medical treatment - so we know she will enhance the truth with misleading statements because she already has. In addition, she has numerous personal economic interests, as well as personal and professional benefits by the accusation and also for not wanting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, as this could hurt her financial interests in the company that make RU486 (the morning-after-pill) that she was a Director of and wrote EIGHT articles trying to push it also as an anti-depressant drug hoping to sell it to tens of millions of people every month.

I do NOT buy her "I'm so afraid!" act. She was not raped nor was there any sexual assault even alleged by her details. She is a PhD psychologist, openly an extreme partisan Democrat who already was openly and in writing attacking President Trump, is a professor and her and her husband are millionaires - far richer than Kavanaugh - with her surrounded by lawyers who specialize in shaking down men on accusations.

I don't believe her. Not any more. If she had a story to tell she would need weeks and weeks of a group of lawyers training her on what she should say and how she should say it. She wouldn't be refusing to tell ANY details that could expose her to a perjury charge if she is lying - so extreme she refuses to even make a sworn accusation.

She is NOT like ANY other victim of an assault, nor without the politics would any lawyer take her case nor would any prosecutor or the police.

Add that all three "named" witnesses (Judge, Smyth, and Ms. Keyser), as well as Mr. Kavanaugh, have denied the incident ever occurred. That means four of the alleged five (or is it six counting Ms. Ford) "witnesses" have denied the incident entirely. Only one more alleged and unnamed "boy" remains, if her story is true.

 

[Mizzy22]

My "I don't know" has evolved to I believe Justice Kavanaugh - and here is why.

Kavanaugh has openly exposed himself to a perjury charge and to being disproven. There were plenty of cheap cameras back then, plenty of security cameras in the high dollar part of town both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were in, and according to her 6 people at the party, any one of which could contradict him. He has exposed himself to being proven lying. He also have given a sworn written denial. In addition, Kavanaugh has agreed to any questioning anywhere, anytime, no conditions.

Not Dr. Ford. To this date, unlike Justice Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford has refused to give any sworn written statement and her brief statements all are to protect her from any possible perjury charge. She will not say where it happened. Will not say when it happened. Will not say how she got there. Will not say how she got home. She refused to allow even Democratic Congressional investigators interview her. Made ludicrous demands as an accuser NO other accuser has ever been allowed (Kavanaugh to provide a defense before even hearing the accusation). She's ducking, dodging and playing politics.

She also has lied, claiming she "received medical treatment for the assault" as an enhancement, when her as a psychologist knows 100% that psychological counseling is not medical treatment - so we know she will enhance the truth with misleading statements because she already has. In addition, she has numerous personal economic interests, as well as personal and professional benefits by the accusation and also for not wanting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, as this could hurt her financial interests in the company that make RU486 (the morning-after-pill) that she was a Director of and wrote EIGHT articles trying to push it also as an anti-depressant drug hoping to sell it to tens of millions of people every month.

I do NOT buy her "I'm so afraid!" act. She was not raped nor was there any sexual assault even alleged by her details. She is a PhD psychologist, openly an extreme partisan Democrat who already was openly and in writing attacking President Trump, is a professor and her and her husband are millionaires - far richer than Kavanaugh - with her surrounded by lawyers who specialize in shaking down men on accusations.

I don't believe her. Not any more. If she had a story to tell she would need weeks and weeks of a group of lawyers training her on what she should say and how she should say it. She wouldn't be refusing to tell ANY details that could expose her to a perjury charge if she is lying - so extreme she refuses to even make a sworn accusation.

She is NOT like ANY other victim of an assault, nor without the politics would any lawyer take her case nor would any prosecutor or the police.

Opinion and assumption

 

[Captain Adverse]

Opinion and assumption

Interesting, as that is what can easily be said of those who base their support for Ms. Ford allegations entirely on her naked word simply because they choose to assume guilt based on "believe the 'victim.'"

According to Ms. Ford's original story there were four boys present including Kavanaugh and Judge. She suddenly "remembers" and names Mr. Smythe, who denies it. Then a "best friend" (Ms. Keyser) is questioned, and she also denies any knowledge of it. That leaves one missing "witness," an as yet to be named "fourth boy."

The only independently corroborating voice pops up to say she "remembers" hearing a "rumor" but then admits she doesn't know if it was true, and disappears from play.

We have a written document from her therapist (another psychologist?) who is NOT a medical practitioner back in 2012; but that record "is mistaken" in parts according to Ms. Ford, while she admits she did not name Kavanaugh or anyone else.

So all we have is "hubby" who claims to remember she mentioned Kavanaugh's name at some point some time.

So much "factual" evidence, who could fail to believe her...eh? :coffeepap:

 

[chuckiechan]

Just in... the other girl Dr. Ford claims was at this tiny drinking party of 6 teenagers has denied ever meeting or knowing Kavanaugh or ever being at such a party. That woman was married to hyper Democrat Bob Beckel.

So EVERYONE is lying against Dr. Ford according to her. Everyone she claims was there and say they weren't are all lying. Even her own psychologist also is a liar according to Dr. Ford. Some vast conspiracy against her by EVERYONE.

I suppose, as her husband now keeps remembering more and more stuff - after talking to her lawyers and himself a Ph -, will suddenly remember he was also at the party and can testify for her - but also claiming seeing this horrific, unthinkable crime against the woman now his wife that he also was too traumatized to remember when, where or how he got there and left.

Kananaugh's response was immediate and hasn't changed. Dr. Ford's story - and her husband's story - just keeps getting better every day, which also indicates a liar.

Why do you think EVERYONE is lying against Dr. Ford, even her former classmates and teenage drinking pals? Even her own psychologist?

I don’t care. I’m against going back to high school years with unproveable accusations against a person 35 odd years later. Too much time is being spent using this woman for parliamentary gamesmanship to halt an appointment by republicans to the Supreme Court.

That is the game they play and we wonder why congress can’t get anything done.

 

[Mithrae]

That is the game they play and we wonder why congress can’t get anything done.

Probably. And from what I've read it seems that it was initially the R-team that dropped the bar to new lows of petty obstructionism against the previous administration, including on the issue of Supreme Court nominations specifically. They're all pretty much as bad as each other.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Probably. And from what I've read it seems that it was initially the R-team that dropped the bar to new lows of petty obstructionism against the previous administration, including on the issue of Supreme Court nominations specifically. They're all pretty much as bad as each other.

Really? Then take the effort of a little history lesson my friend from Australia.

First look up and review the nomination of Robert Bork.

Then try examining the nomination of Clarence Thomas.

Compare and contrast those two Democratic efforts, one successful and the other not, with the current Democratic effort regarding Mr. Kavanaugh.

Maybe that will modify your opinion?

 

[Lutherf]

I'm not going to bother with why Kavanaugh or Ford should be believed. That's pretty much wasted speculation as it's unlikely that such a charge can be proved either way.

Here's why I don't believe Democrats, especially Feinstein, when it comes to this matter.

Feinstein had the letter when she questioned Kavanaugh. She could have asked a generic question about inappropriate behavior as a young man. She didn't. If she had asked such a question and Kavanaugh denied any inappropriate behavior the discussion now would be with regard to whether Kavanaugh had perjured himself in his testimony. That would be a MUCH more damning accusation right now than it is. It would have bolstered the Democrat case against Kavanaugh rather than merely create a bit of chaos.

Why didn't Feinstein ask such a question? The simple answer is that SHE doesn't believe Ford either.

 

[Mithrae]

Really? Then take the effort of a little history lesson my friend from Australia.

First look up and review the nomination of Robert Bork.

Then try examining the nomination of Clarence Thomas.

Compare and contrast those two Democratic efforts, one successful and the other not, with the current Democratic effort regarding Mr. Kavanaugh.

Maybe that will modify your opinion?

There's a vast difference between a Senate discussing the merits or otherwise of a specific candidate and potentially rejecting him, and the Republicans' fiasco of declaring that they would not consider any candidate whatsoever in next eleven months. This Kavanaugh stuff looks pretty dubious, but still doesn't measure up to the 2016 precedent of petty obstructionism.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There's a vast difference between a Senate discussing the merits or otherwise of a specific candidate and potentially rejecting him, and the Republicans' fiasco of declaring that they would not consider any candidate whatsoever in next eleven months. This Kavanaugh stuff looks pretty dubious, but still doesn't measure up to the 2016 precedent of petty obstructionism.

Short answer?

There is no hard and fast rule for Article II, Section 2 "Advice and Consent."

No "obstruction" because that would indicate efforts to prevent something from occurring.

However, it takes a majority vote to consent.

A majority of the Senate did not want to approve Merrick Garland, and simply opted not to "waste time" with a hearing. They had no intention of "consenting."

Thus, their action was completely Constitutional. :shrug:

Edit: On the other hand the Democrats ARE obstructing in hopes the Mid-terms will eliminate the Republican majority. They don't want a vote of the majority NOW, so they are doing everything they can to delay in hopes of obstructing his appointment.

 

[Mithrae]

A majority of the Senate did not want to approve Merrick Garland, and simply opted not to "waste time" with a hearing. They had no intention of "consenting."

Thus, their action was completely Constitutional. :shrug:

Edit: On the other hand the Democrats ARE obstructing in hopes the Mid-terms will eliminate the Republican majority. They don't want a vote of the majority NOW, so they are doing everything they can to delay in hopes of obstructing his appointment.

I didn't name Garland; as I said, the issue was the Republicans' insistence that they would not consider any nominee. In the case of Garland specifically, according to Wikipedia no fewer than eight former Solicitor General of the United States - four of them Republican - endorsed him as "superbly qualified," as did the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Some key Republicans said they'd be only too happy to confirm him if the election seven months down the track didn't go well for them.

Blindly opposing any nominee - and then still refusing to even consider a superbly qualified, moderate nominee - to one of your country's most important institutions for a year, purely for the sake of undisguised partisan gamesmanship, is a textbook example of petty obstructionism.


It kind of looks like the Democrats may be trying to do something similar, albeit over a shorter period of time and due to objections against a particular candidate rather than blindly opposing anyone at all. You seem to have some pretty powerfully red-tinted glasses on, my American friend

 

[Captain Adverse]

I didn't name Garland; as I said, the issue was the Republicans' insistence that they would not consider any nominee. In the case of Garland specifically, according to Wikipedia no fewer than eight former Solicitor General of the United States - four of them Republican - endorsed him as "superbly qualified," as did the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Some key Republicans said they'd be only too happy to confirm him if the election seven months down the track didn't go well for them.

Blindly opposing any nominee - and then still refusing to even consider a superbly qualified, moderate nominee - to one of your country's most important institutions for a year, purely for the sake of undisguised partisan gamesmanship, is a textbook example of petty obstructionism.


It kind of looks like the Democrats may be trying to do something similar, albeit over a shorter period of time and due to objections against a particular candidate rather than blindly opposing anyone at all. You seem to have some pretty powerfully red-tinted glasses on, my American friend

Doesn't matter who the majority is Democrat or Republican, nor what the motive is (usually to get a left or right leaning majority on the Court).

It is not "obstruction" if a Majority simply refuse to endorse an appointee of the President. They don't have to go through any hearings.

They simply withhold consent. The President can try again. :shrug:

 

[PLizzy]

Doesn't matter who the majority is Democrat or Republican, nor what the motive is (usually to get a left or right leaning majority on the Court).

It is not "obstruction" if a Majority simply refuse to endorse an appointee of the President. They don't have to go through any hearings.

They simply withhold consent. The President can try again. :shrug:

I guess we should have played constitutional hardball like the right.

We still can.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I guess we should have played constitutional hardball like the right.

We still can.

Exactly. :shrug:

IMO that is their current intent with Kavanaugh...obstruct until the mid-terms show if the Democrats get a Majority...then either refuse to vote or vote to deny.

 

[chuckiechan]

My "I don't know" has evolved to I believe Justice Kavanaugh - and here is why.

Kavanaugh has openly exposed himself to a perjury charge and to being disproven. There were plenty of cheap cameras back then, plenty of security cameras in the high dollar part of town both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were in, and according to her 6 people at the party, any one of which could contradict him. He has exposed himself to being proven lying. He also have given a sworn written denial. In addition, Kavanaugh has agreed to any questioning anywhere, anytime, no conditions.

Not Dr. Ford. To this date, unlike Justice Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford has refused to give any sworn written statement and her brief statements all are to protect her from any possible perjury charge. She will not say where it happened. Will not say when it happened. Will not say how she got there. Will not say how she got home. She refused to allow even Democratic Congressional investigators interview her. Made ludicrous demands as an accuser NO other accuser has ever been allowed (Kavanaugh to provide a defense before even hearing the accusation). She's ducking, dodging and playing politics.

She also has lied, claiming she "received medical treatment for the assault" as an enhancement, when her as a psychologist knows 100% that psychological counseling is not medical treatment - so we know she will enhance the truth with misleading statements because she already has. In addition, she has numerous personal economic interests, as well as personal and professional benefits by the accusation and also for not wanting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, as this could hurt her financial interests in the company that make RU486 (the morning-after-pill) that she was a Director of and wrote EIGHT articles trying to push it also as an anti-depressant drug hoping to sell it to tens of millions of people every month.

I do NOT buy her "I'm so afraid!" act. She was not raped nor was there any sexual assault even alleged by her details. She is a PhD psychologist, openly an extreme partisan Democrat who already was openly and in writing attacking President Trump, is a professor and her and her husband are millionaires - far richer than Kavanaugh - with her surrounded by lawyers who specialize in shaking down men on accusations.

I don't believe her. Not any more. If she had a story to tell she would need weeks and weeks of a group of lawyers training her on what she should say and how she should say it. She wouldn't be refusing to tell ANY details that could expose her to a perjury charge if she is lying - so extreme she refuses to even make a sworn accusation.

She is NOT like ANY other victim of an assault, nor without the politics would any lawyer take her case nor would any prosecutor or the police.

To me it is especially rich that for appointment to the top court of America, due process is denied the applicant. "She said, and that is the end of that".

Grassley is dragging it out because it is hurting the democrats. I hope it hurts a lot. Every "suburban woman" the democrats claim are coming to their side has a husband, brother, or son who could just as well be facing a "she said, and that is the end of that" accusation and have it used to destroy them, 40 years hence.

They are treating this like the Jews hunting down Nazi's in South America.

 

[joko104]

I didn't name Garland; as I said, the issue was the Republicans' insistence that they would not consider any nominee. In the case of Garland specifically, according to Wikipedia no fewer than eight former Solicitor General of the United States - four of them Republican - endorsed him as "superbly qualified," as did the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Some key Republicans said they'd be only too happy to confirm him if the election seven months down the track didn't go well for them.

Blindly opposing any nominee - and then still refusing to even consider a superbly qualified, moderate nominee - to one of your country's most important institutions for a year, purely for the sake of undisguised partisan gamesmanship, is a textbook example of petty obstructionism.


It kind of looks like the Democrats may be trying to do something similar, albeit over a shorter period of time and due to objections against a particular candidate rather than blindly opposing anyone at all. You seem to have some pretty powerfully red-tinted glasses on, my American friend

It is clear that if Democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives they would NOT be holding hearings on Kavanaugh because it already known they would vote against him.

I do understand some people think politics is only about irrelevant grand standing and that seems to be your opinion by your messages.

 

[chuckiechan]

Probably. And from what I've read it seems that it was initially the R-team that dropped the bar to new lows of petty obstructionism against the previous administration, including on the issue of Supreme Court nominations specifically. They're all pretty much as bad as each other.

The biggest problem is the Republicabs like to play Mr. Nice Guy. They would rather take the high road and lose with honor.

Thank God for Trump. Finally the forgotten ones have some one who is not afraid to fight in the gutter with the democrats to make progress in getting America off the collision course of being destroyed economically by China by politicians who don’t take the threat seriously exists because they fear making waves. “Love me while I **** you” has been the motto for way too long!

 

[joko104]

What does any of this have to do with Kavanaugh as a judge? He's been a law clerk in the SCOTUS and a federal judge and justice for years. He's not been nominated to be Pope. What does any of this have to do with whether or not he has been a competent Federal Court of Appeals Justice with the knowledge and experience to be on the SCOTUS???

 

[Slavister]

My "I don't know" has evolved to I believe Justice Kavanaugh...

What does any of this have to do with Kavanaugh as a judge? He's been a law clerk in the SCOTUS and a federal judge and justice for years. He's not been nominated to be Pope. What does any of this have to do with whether or not he has been a competent Federal Court of Appeals Justice with the knowledge and experience to be on the SCOTUS???

Looks like within 25 hours, this thread turned from "I believe Kavanaugh" to "Why does this matter whether it's true or not?"

 

[Big Ed]

What does any of this have to do with Kavanaugh as a judge? He's been a law clerk in the SCOTUS and a federal judge and justice for years. He's not been nominated to be Pope. What does any of this have to do with whether or not he has been a competent Federal Court of Appeals Justice with the knowledge and experience to be on the SCOTUS???

Absolutely nothing - qualifications are meaningless - to the Democrats and left biased! As I said in another post, Trump could Nominate an individual with wings and a halo, the left and Dems would find/fabricate something to disqualify the nomination (male or female).

 

[joko104]

Looks like within 25 hours, this thread turned from "I believe Kavanaugh" to "Why does this matter whether it's true or not?"

They are not exclusive of each other.