SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Arakhor]

do u liek beer?

Sadly not, no.

 

[Hehehe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's still no evidence against Kavanaugh, only accusations?

 

[metalhead]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's still no evidence against Kavanaugh, only accusations?

No evidence against Kavanaugh despite the evidence you just cited?

Careful with those paradoxes man, I think space-time is already a little frayed these days.

 

[Hehehe]

No evidence against Kavanaugh despite the evidence you just cited?

Careful with those paradoxes man, I think space-time is already a little frayed these days.

So accusations are evidence now?

 

[JollyRoger]

Kavanagh's calendar corroborates an event with some of the people Dr. Ford mentioned in attendance.

 

[Hehehe]

Kavanagh's calendar corroborates an event with some of the people Dr. Ford mentioned in attendance.

What's the significance of this? It doesn't seem like evidence of wrongdoing to me

 

[metalhead]

So accusations are evidence now?

Yes.

So is testimony of the accuser and the accused under oath.

 

[Hehehe]

Yes.

So is testimony of the accuser and the accused under oath.

Yeah, so there's zero proof of any wrongdoing? Damn, politics is a dirty game. I'm a little worried about the state of politics if this is all it takes to smear a man and potentially drive him out of office. Also, the timing of these accusations seems highly suspicious

 

[hobbsyoyo]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...vanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

So now we can add a potential obstruction of justice to the accusations of perjury and sexual assault both attempted and perpetrated.

It is also perjury. He was asked if he had known about these accusations prior to them being made public and he said no he had not.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, so there's zero proof of any wrongdoing? Damn, politics is a dirty game. I'm a little worried about the state of politics if this is all it takes to smear a man and potentially drive him out of office. Also, the timing of these accusations seems highly suspicious

Wait so now you don't believe in evidence? Why were you asking about evidence if its existence doesn't matter to your opinion?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, so there's zero proof of any wrongdoing? Damn, politics is a dirty game. I'm a little worried about the state of politics if this is all it takes to smear a man and potentially drive him out of office. Also, the timing of these accusations seems highly suspicious

> be me, hehehe
> have no understanding of the law
> confuse this job interview with a trial
> fail to read anything in the thread
> rehash debunked talking points about how highly (sus) these damn women are
> Why didn't the Democrats come forward with these accusations?
> Consent is just a leftwing conspiracy

 

[Hehehe]

Wait so now you don't believe in evidence? Why were you asking about evidence if its existence doesn't matter to your opinion?

> be me, hehehe
> have no understanding of the law
> confuse this job interview with a trial
> fail to read anything in the thread
> rehash debunked talking points about how highly (sus) these damn women are
> Why didn't the Democrats come forward with these accusations?
> Consent is just a leftwing conspiracy

I asked you guys if there's proof of any wrongdoing, and so far, I've seen none. The point about the accusations themselves being "evidence" missed the mark so hard that it's amazing you guys find it even worth bringing up. Also, greentexting? Seriously?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The evidence has been provided in spades in thread and the previous thread. It was also recapped here by @metalhead for your benefit. That you deny it is evidence is on you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I asked you guys if there's proof of any wrongdoing, and so far, I've seen none.

I like the honest way this is worded. You asked if there is proof, the answer is yes. You acknowledge that you haven't seen any, which is presumably because your eyes are shut and your fingers are in your ears.

 

[metalhead]

I asked you guys if there's proof of any wrongdoing, and so far, I've seen none. The point about the accusations themselves being "evidence" missed the mark so hard that it's amazing you guys find it even worth bringing up. Also, greentexting? Seriously?

Witness testimony counts as "proof" in a court of law, so I don't know what you're looking for here, exactly, other than a platform where you can ignorantly grandstand using concepts you clearly don't understand.

 

[Lexicus]

I have already explained that I believed Dr. Ford's allegation the day it came out, because Grassley released that letter of good character so quickly afterward that I believe it must have been ready before Ford's allegation became public, and I believe the only reasonable explanation for that is that the allegation is true. Apparently there is now also evidence that Kavanaugh discussed Ramirez' allegation before that became public, again, the only reasonable explanation is that the allegation is true.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah Kavanaugh bragged that on the first day of the accusations he was able to produce a letter signed by ~60 women stating how awesome he is. Now that was (sus) but at the time I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now that we know he was going around collecting letters like this well before any of the accusations were made public it more or less confirms he knew the accusations were out there. And of course it is yet another instance of perjury. That's like count 50 or so.

How the Republicans can justify standing beside him now just based on all his lying alone is beyond me.

 

[Hehehe]

The evidence has been provided in spades in thread and the previous thread.

Yeah, forgive me for not trawling through all 100+ pages, as I do not really care that much.

It was also recapped here by @metalhead for your benefit. That you deny it is evidence is on you.

The accusations themselves are technically "evidence"? Right, got it

I like the honest way this is worded. You asked if there is proof, the answer is yes. You acknowledge that you haven't seen any, which is presumably because your eyes are shut and your fingers are in your ears.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, which is definitely a possibility, then I'll gladly throw the first stone. I admit not having followed this very closely, but it doesn't seem to me like his guilt has been properly established.

I have already explained that I believed Dr. Ford's allegation the day it came out, because Grassley released that letter of good character so quickly afterward that I believe it must have been ready before Ford's allegation became public, and I believe the only reasonable explanation for that is that the allegation is true. Apparently there is now also evidence that Kavanaugh discussed Ramirez' allegation before that became public, again, the only reasonable explanation is that the allegation is true.

Can't people defend themselves against false accusations too?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How the Republicans can justify standing beside him now just based on all his lying alone is beyond me.

They're Republicans.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, forgive me for not trawling through all 100+ pages, as I do not really care that much.

This would be forgivable if @metalhead hadn't given you a nice recap on the specific subject we're talking about.

The accusations themselves are technically "evidence"? Right, got it

Yes!

If Kavanaugh is guilty, which is definitely a possibility, then I'll gladly throw the first stone. I admit not having followed this very closely, but it doesn't seem to me like his guilt has been properly established.

Let's put aside the issue of whether he is guilty of the accusations. Given all of the lies he stated under oath and the tenor of his testimony (accusing the democrats of being out to get him, it's all a Clinton conspiracy, he's going to get even with the Democrats, etc), how can you still support him as a judge on the supreme court?